The environmental assessment of the federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Donald W. Gohmert, State Conservationist, has determined that preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is not needed for this project.

The project will protect critically eroding portions of the southern bank of the GIWW that acts as an interface between the fragile fresh marshes and the flowing, turbulent water of the GIWW. The proposed project consists of 37,000 feet of bankline restoration and protection along the foreshore of the southern bank of the GIWW.

The Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data collected during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Donald W. Gohmert.

No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register .

The environmental assessment of this federal assisted action indicates that the project may cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Homer L. Wilkes, State Conservationist has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is needed for this project.

The project concerns a watershed plan to provide flood protection and watershed protection. Alternatives under consideration include conservation land treatment using best management practices and channel work.

A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared and circulated for review by agencies and the public. The Natural Resources Conservation Service invites participation and consultation of agency individuals that have special expertise, legal jurisdiction, or interest in the preparation of the draft environmental impact statement. Further information on the proposed action may be obtained from Homer L. Wilkes at the above address or telephone number.

On September 10, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the thirteenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PTFE resin from Italy. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy , 67 FR 57376 (September 10, 2002) ( Preliminary Results ). On September 17, 2002, we received from Ausimont its response to sections B and D of the supplemental questionnaire.

We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results . On October 10, 2002, we received case briefs from both the petitioner, E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Company (Dupont) and Ausimont. On October 17, 2002, we received rebuttal briefs from both Dupont and Ausimont. The Department rejected, and requested resubmission of, DuPont's rebuttal brief on October 28, 2002, because that brief advanced a new argument not present in the petitioner's case brief and not responsive to arguments in the respondent's case brief. The petitioner resubmitted its rebuttal brief on November 1, 2002. Additionally, on October 31, 2002, the Department issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Ausimont. Ausimont submitted its response to this questionnaire on November 14, 2002, and the petitioner submitted comments on Ausimont's response on November 25, 2002.

A public hearing was held on December 9, 2002, at which the parties discussed the issues contained in the case and rebuttal briefs, as well as Ausimont's second supplemental questionnaire response and the petitioner's November 25, 2002, comments.

The product covered by this review is granular PTFE resin, filled or unfilled. This order also covers PTFE wet raw polymer exported from Italy to the United States. See Final Affirmative Determination; Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy , 58 FR 26100 (April 30, 1993). This order excludes PTFE dispersions in water and fine powders. During the period covered by this review, such merchandise was classified under item number 3904.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS). We are providing this HTS number for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope remains dispositive.

All issues raised in the case briefs, and post-briefing submissions, by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” ( Decision Memorandum ) from Bernard T. Carreau, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated January 8, 2003, which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice, as an appendix, is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum . Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room B-099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and the electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we made the following adjustments to the calculation methodology in determining the final dumping margins in the proceeding:

These adjustments are discussed in the Decision Memorandum and in the Calculation Memorandum .

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that “if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority; (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title.” In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as the facts otherwise available. The statute also provides that such an adverse inference may be based on secondary information, including information drawn from the petition, a final determination in an investigation, any previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record. In this case, the Department has applied partial facts available for a quantity of unreported sales and the general and administrative expense ratio. ( See the Decision Memorandum at comments 1 and 2).

As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period of August 1, 2000, through July 31, 2001:

The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates by dividing the dumping margin found on the subject merchandise examined by the entered value of such merchandise. Where the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis we will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping duties on that importer's entries of subject merchandise. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results of administrative review, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) for the exporter/manufacturer covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent final results in which that producer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the most recent final results in which that producer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 46.46 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation (53 FR 26096, July 11, 1988). These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 (f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

NIST may enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (“CRADA”) with the licensee to perform further research on the invention for purposes of commercialization. The invention available for licensing is: [Docket No.: 99-027US]

Title: Parallel X-ray Nanotomography.

Abstract: An apparatus for nanotomography uses an x-ray source comprising a laser generated plasma. X-rays generated in the x-ray source are collected and focused using a collector optic onto a sample. The collector optic is preferably comprised of Wolter optics combining reflection off an ellipsoid with a reflection off a hyperboloid. X-rays emitted from the sample are focused with an objective lens assembly. The objective lens assembly includes an array of fresnel zone plates. An image formation and acquisition apparatus form an image based on the received X-rays. The array of fresnel zone places is an important feature of the invention, as the array dramatically improves the intensity of the x-rays reaching the detector over a conventional objective lens. A laser-based x-ray source is also key to the invention, generating an x-ray beam of sufficient intensity to provide sufficient counting statistics for a tomographic reconstruction to be obtained.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA), as amended by the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, require the Secretary of Commerce to conduct specified scientific research and make a finding, based on the results of that research, information obtained under the International Dolphin Conservation Program, and any other relevant information, as to whether the intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins with purse seine nets is having a “significant adverse impact” on any depleted dolphin stock in the ETP.

On December 31, 2002, the Assistant Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, determined that the chase and intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins with purse seine nets is not having a significant adverse impact on depleted dolphin stocks in the ETP. A copy of the finding and the rationale supporting the finding are set forth below. Copies of supporting documentation referenced in the rationale may be found on the Internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/PR2/Tuna_Dolphin/tunadolphin.html.

This finding determines the definition of dolphin-safe for tuna products containing tuna harvested in the ETP by purse seine vessels with carrying capacity greater than 400 short tons and sold in the United States. As a result of this finding, the dolphin-safe labeling standard shall be that prescribed by section (h)(1) of the DPCIA. Therefore, dolphins can be encircled or chased, but no dolphins can be killed or seriously injured in the set in which the tuna was harvested.

The Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA) requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to make a final finding by December 31, 2002 on whether the intentional deployment on or the encirclement of dolphin with purse seine nets is having a significant adverse impact on any depleted dolphin stock in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) region. 16 U.S.C. 1385(g)(2) The authority to make the finding has been delegated to the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. Based on the information reviewed, I hereby find the intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphin with purse seine nets in not having a significant adverse effect on any depleted dolphin stock in the ETP.

Since the late 1950's, the predominant tuna fishing method in the ETP has been to encircle schools of dolphins with a purse seine fishing net to capture the tuna concentrated below. Hundreds of thousands of dolphins died as a result of this practice in the early years of this fishery. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) provisions, improved fishing techniques, and international cooperation have resulted in greatly reduced dolphin mortality.

In 1997, the MMPA and the DPCIA were amended by the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA), to require the Secretary to conduct specified scientific research and make a finding, based on the results of that research, information obtained under the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP), and any other relevant information, whether the intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins with purse seine nets is having a “significant adverse impact” on any depleted dolphin stock in the ETP. This finding changes the dolphin-safe labeling standard as it applies to tuna harvested in the ETP by purse seine vessels with carrying capacity greater than 400 short tons and sold in the United States. The finding must be made by December 31, 2002, and the research findings must be submitted to Congress within 90 days.

To arrive at a finding, NOAA Fisheries, in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), conducted “a study of the effect of intentional encirclement (including chase) on dolphins and dolphin stocks incidentally taken in the course of purse seine fishing for yellowfin tuna in the ETP.” Based on the research results and the other best available information, I have concluded that the intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins with purse seine nets is not having a significant adverse impact on depleted dolphin stocks in the ETP. This finding means that the dolphin-safe labeling standard shall be that prescribed by section (h)(1) of the DPCIA. Therefore, dolphin-safe means that dolphins can be encircled or chased, but no dolphins can be killed or seriously injured in the set in which the tuna was harvested. This finding will become effective immediately.

A Federal Register Notice will be published containing more information on this finding. The Final Science Report will be submitted to Congress within 90 days.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA), as amended by the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA), require the Secretary of Commerce to conduct specified scientific research and make a finding, based on the results of that research, information obtained under the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP), and any other relevant information, as to whether or not the intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins with purse seine nets is having a “significant adverse impact” on any depleted dolphin stock in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). The Secretary's finding serves as the basis for determining the definition of “dolphin-safe” as applicable to tuna harvested by purse seine vessels with carrying capacities of greater than 400 short tons operating in the ETP. Further, the DPCIA required the Secretary to make an initial finding in 1999, and a final finding no later than December 31, 2002.

On April 29, 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), on behalf of the Secretary, made an initial finding that there was insufficient evidence at that time to determine whether the deployment on and encirclement of dolphins by the tuna purse seine fishery was having a significant adverse impact on any depleted dolphin stock in the ETP (64 FR 24590). Also in 1999, NOAA Fisheries submitted a Report to Congress containing the preliminary research findings to support that initial finding. That Report also described a decision analysis framework to evaluate quantitatively the various types of information gathered in the required studies in order to make the initial finding. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in Brower v. Daley, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (N. D. Ca. 2000), set aside the 1999 determination, and that ruling was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Brower v. Evans, 257 F. 3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2001).

The final research results provide substantially more information to support the final finding than was available for the initial finding in 1999. Some of this new information includes: updated dolphin abundance data, updated mortality estimates based on observer data, an updated review of scientific literature on stress in marine mammals, results from a necropsy study of dolphins killed in the fishery, a review of historical demographic and biological data related to dolphins involved in the fishery, results from the chase-recapture experiment, as well as information regarding variability in the biological and physical parameters of the ETP ecosystem over time. In making the final finding, all research required by the IDCPA was completed and considered.

To accommodate this newly available scientific information and ensure transparency in the development of its decision, NOAA Fisheries revised its decision-making process for the final finding. On February 15, 2002, NOAA Fisheries published a proposed Organized Decision Process (ODP) in the Federal Register . The ODP was designed to establish a framework for making the final finding. Comments were received on this proposal from the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), environmental organizations, the U.S. and the foreign tuna industries, members of the public, the U.S. Departments of State and Justice, two members of the U.S. Congress, and several foreign nations, among others. After careful consideration of these comments, NOAA Fisheries made revisions, as appropriate, and, on August 23, 2002, adopted a final ODP

The ODP differs from the previous decision framework primarily in that it takes into account different levels of uncertainty inherent in research of this nature. The ODP allows the Secretary to consider many different types of the information in light of the uncertainty and appropriately weigh the information based on the level of confidence that exists for the information. The ODP is also distinct from NOAA Fisheries' earlier decision framework in that it includes a mechanism for weighing information based on high standards for determining what is the best information available. As prescribed by the ODP, the weight given to the available scientific information will be determined by the degree to which it meets the following elements: (1) Relevance, (2) timeliness, (3) passed independent peer-review, and (4) available to NOAA Fisheries for verification.

The ODP defined the terms included in the weighting criteria. “Relevance” was defined to mean the scientific information is pertinent to the use of the information. “Timeliness” was defined to mean the relevancy of scientific information least degraded by the passage of time. “Passed independent peer review” was defined to mean the scientific information has been published in a refereed scientific journal in its field or independently read and criticized in writing by at least two peers; the criticism was disposed of either by acceptance or rebuttal, as appropriate by the author(s); and the disposition of the criticism by the author(s) was independently determined to be appropriate and adequate. Verification was defined to mean that the data, procedures, methods, equipment, mathematics, statistics, models, computer software, and anything else used to produce the scientific information are to be submitted to NMFS in a timely manner such that the scientific information may be replicated or rejected. For the final finding, “in a timely manner” was stated in the ODP as being material received as of May 1, 2002.

The NOAA Fisheries' ODP considers separate measures of fishery and environmental effects on dolphins, consisting of a series of questions for consideration in reaching the final finding. They are as follows: (1) The Ecosystem Question; (2) the Direct Mortality Question; (3) the Indirect Effects Question; and (4) the Growth Rate Question. For the Direct Mortality and the Growth Rate Questions, there are basic thresholds in the ODP that result in a “yes” or “no” answer. If the answer to the Direct Mortality Question is “yes”, then the Secretary will conclude that the fishery is having a significant adverse impact. Similarly, if the answer to the Growth Rate Question is “no”, then the Secretary will conclude that the fishery is having a significant adverse impact. Conversely, a “no” and a “yes” answer, respectively, would result in a finding of no significant adverse impact. For the Ecosystem and the Indirect Effects Questions, the Secretary will review the available information as well as the evidence presented by members of two expert panels in reaching final conclusions. The questions found in the ODP, along with the information used to reach the appropriate answers and rationale for each, are found below.

Pursuant to section 304(a) of the MMPA, NOAA Fisheries completed four years of specified research to support the Secretary's finding regarding the impact of the tuna purse seine fishery on depleted dolphin stocks in the ETP, in consultation with the MMC and the IATTC. The research program was broadly structured to include four components: abundance estimation, ecosystem studies, stress and other fishery effect studies, and stock assessment. The results of the required research were subjected to rigorous, independent peer reviews to ensure that the Secretary is provided with information of the highest caliber in making the final finding. NOAA Fisheries will submit these results in its Final Science Report to Congress within 90 days of the finding. A brief summary of each of the major categories of research follows.

Abundance Estimation. Knowledge of dolphin population levels is key to understanding the overall status of these stocks. Current dolphin abundance estimates were derived from research vessel surveys conducted in the ETP during 1998, 1999, and 2000, using improved analytical methods for abundance estimation. Survey data from nine earlier abundance surveys dating back to 1979 were also re-analyzed using these new methods. This time series of abundance estimates provides the core information for evaluations of trends, population growth rates, and ultimately stock assessment analyses for the three depleted dolphin stocks.

Ecosystem Studies. For a long-lived animal such as a dolphin, carrying capacity is more likely to be affected by long-term (over decades) changes rather than those occurring short-term (inter-annual or seasonal). NOAA Fisheries' ecosystem studies focused on investigations of temporal variation in as many parts of the ETP ecosystem as possible. These included physical and biological oceanography, a range of trophic levels from the lowest (phytoplankton) to the highest (top predators), and as many species within each trophic level as possible.

Stress and Other Indirect Fishery Effects. Stress studies are also mandated by the MMPA amendments to address the concern that chase and encirclement during fishing operations might affect dolphins in ways that might not necessarily result in their immediate and observable death in the nets, but that could impede recovery. These are often called “cryptic” effects. Four related research projects generally termed “stress studies” were specifically required by U.S. law to study the effect of intentional encirclement on dolphins and dolphin stocks: a stress literature review, a necropsy study, a review of historical data, and a field study involving the repeated chasing and capturing of dolphins. The key lines of investigation included research on potential separation of dolphin cows and calves, measurement of acute and chronic physiological effects that could result in injury or death, observation of behavioral responses to fishing activities, and estimation of the average number of times a dolphin might be chased and encircled per-year per-stock.

Stock Assessments. The final component of the research, the stock assessment modeling, provides quantitative estimates of dolphin population growth rates and depletion levels, as well as a framework for testing hypotheses about the effects on dolphins of changes in carrying capacity and potential fishery effects. Of primary interest was an evaluation of the current population size relative to the population size that can be sustained by the ecosystem in the absence of human-induced mortality. This has a direct bearing on the potential rate of recovery for these depleted stocks and provides a means of evaluating the observed population growth rate in the context of the ecosystem and uncertainties associated with the estimates of abundance and mortality. Unfortunately, this question cannot be addressed for coastal spotted dolphins because historical estimates of mortality and abundance are not available for this stock.

Pursuant to the MMPA, the Secretary is also required to consider “information obtained under the IDCP” and “other relevant information” when making the final finding. To this end, NOAA Fisheries worked with the IATTC to obtain various types of information relevant to this decision. This information included data on the number of dolphin sets made by the fishery and dolphin mortality reported by the IATTC observer program, among other things.

NOAA Fisheries also invited interested members of the public to submit such information for consideration. In order to properly assess and evaluate this outside information with sufficient time for making the finding by the date required in the statute (December 31, 2002), the deadline for submission of information was May 1, 2002. For the purposes of weighing outside information, NOAA Fisheries determined that information submitted by the deadline was submitted in a timely manner and is given greater weight than information that was submitted after this deadline. There was only one submission of outside scientific information by May 1, 2002. This consisted of a review by the IATTC of three previously published NOAA Fisheries papers on the subject of dolphin stress and other indirect effects of the tuna purse seine fishery on dolphins. NOAA Fisheries considers the review relevant, since it was received in a timely manner and was able to be evaluated and verified. The document is currently under review with a scientific journal, but otherwise has not been independently peer reviewed.

NOAA Fisheries submitted its Final Science Report to the IATTC and the MMC for their review as a mechanism by which to provide the Secretary with the best information in making the final finding. NOAA Fisheries received general comments from the MMC. The IATTC submitted comments pertaining to the NOAA Fisheries Science Report, as well as additional information and analyses. NOAA Fisheries considers this information relevant, although it was not able to thoroughly evaluate and verify the information. NOAA Fisheries did, however, prepare a cursory assessment of the IATTC's comments for consideration. In summary, the IATTC's comments include in-depth analyses of relevant information and specific comments pertaining to the analysis and interpretation of information by NOAA Fisheries. The IATTC's response also concludes that the fishery is not having a significant adverse impact on depleted dolphin stocks in the ETP. The MMC's comments concluded that there is insufficient evidence to determine that the fishery is not having a significant impact on depleted stocks and that there is only inconclusive evidence that the intentional chase and encirclement of dolphins by the fishery is having adverse impacts on the recovery of dolphin stocks. While this information is relevant and was considered in making the finding, it cannot be weighed as heavily as the information contained in NOAA Fisheries' Final Science Report.

NOAA Fisheries appointed two panels of independent scientific experts to provide individual opinions regarding the answers to the Ecosystem and the Indirect Effects questions as a means of assisting in answering the two questions in the ODP for which there are the most complex and/or uncertain data (67 FR 31279). The panelists were nominated by the public, with the help of several scientific and professional societies, and were chosen by a committee of individuals which included representatives from NOAA Fisheries, the IATTC, the MMC, and an independent scientific body. The individual experts based their opinions on a review of the results from the required research program, information obtained under the IDCP, and other relevant information, along with the expert knowledge that these individuals possess as leaders in their respective fields.

The Ecosystem Question. During the period of the fishery, has the carrying capacity of the ETP for dolphins declined substantially or has the ecological structure of the ETP changed substantially in any way that could impede depleted dolphin stocks from growing at rates expected in a static ecosystem? Or has the carrying capacity increased substantially or has the ecological structure changed in any way that could promote depleted dolphin stocks to grow at rates faster than expected in a static ecosystem?

Changes in an ecosystem can fundamentally affect the carrying capacity of a species that inhabits that ecosystem. Changes that adversely affect the habitat of a species, including its prey, likely will result in a decrease in the carrying capacity of that species. For depleted species, such adverse changes also will likely slow the rate at which these species recover.

Because substantial changes in an ecosystem can affect a depleted population or stock's recovery, the ODP considers scientific evidence of whether a significant ecosystem change has occurred in the ETP and if so, how that change may be impacting depleted dolphin stocks. In considering the possible effects of ecosystem changes, NOAA Fisheries collected or reviewed physical and biological oceanography data, including information on a range of trophic levels from the lowest (phytoplankton) to the highest (top predators), and as many species within each trophic level as possible. NOAA Fisheries also solicited the opinions from members of a separate Ecosystems Panel, comprised of independent scientific experts in biological oceanography and ecology.

Available scientific information reveals the existence of periodic, low frequency changes within the ETP. These longer, decadal-changes are evident from sea surface temperature data beginning in 1901. Notably, a shift occurred in the late 1970s that was detected throughout the Pacific Ocean. Changes at that time in the physical environment and in biological communities were clearly documented in the North Pacific Ocean. In the ETP, this shift resulted in a warming of less than 1°C. Coincident with increase in temperature in the ETP, there was a weakening of trade winds and a small change in surface chlorophyll. No other responses to this late 1970s shift have been reported, but biological data prior to 1976 are sparse or currently unavailable in a form that would allow comparisons with more recent data.

In addition to periodic, low-frequency ecosystem changes, the ETP ecosystem is periodically affected by the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which occurs on two to seven year periods. All investigations by NOAA Fisheries indicated that variability associated with ENSO events is the predominant variability throughout the ecosystem, having a much greater effect than periodic decadal-scale changes. These ecosystem changes are in part supported by analyses of data on prey fishes, squids, and seabirds collected by NOAA Fisheries during dolphin surveys since 1986. The broader significance of these changes, however, is limited given the absence of comparable data prior to the early 1980s.

NOAA Fisheries' research indicates that dramatic reductions in carrying capacity caused by ecosystem changes is considered unlikely. If an ecosystem change dramatic enough to impact dolphin stocks had occurred, it is unlikely that the only animals affected would be dolphins. Data on a wide range of habitat variables and species were collected, beginning in 1986, as part of the NOAA Fisheries dolphin assessment cruises. No dramatic shifts were detected. However, NOAA's ability to determine existence and magnitude of ecosystem changes in the ETP, together with the effect of those changes upon depleted stocks, is significantly limited by a paucity of relevant scientific information. Questions remain as to the actual carrying capacity of depleted stocks under even optimal conditions. Additionally, there are few data available concerning the ETP ecosystem prior to the late 1970s, hindering the ability to examine low frequency ecosystem changes and their effect on depleted marine mammal stocks. Assessments are further limited by the possibility that even small changes in background physical conditions can have large effects upon species within that ecosystem.

The potential effect of ecosystem changes was addressed by the five members of the Ecosystem Panel, each of whom had significantly different expertise to bring to bear on their individual opinions. The Ecosystem Expert Panel members' assessments were based on their review of the NOAA Fisheries Final Science Report, and relevant oceanographic and ecosystem data from the period of the fishery.

All experts agreed that historical surface temperature data indicate that since the mid 1970s, the Pacific Ocean has been in a warm phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Within the ETP, this PDO cycle has resulted in a surface temperature increase of 2 degrees centigrade above temperatures documented during a cold phase which occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. (Report of Michael Landry). While increased temperatures may result in some positive effects, most experts agreed that temperature increases would result in a deeper thermocline, which in turn would reduce the availability of prey species for depleted marine mammals.

In addition to ecological changes brought on by PDO, experts also noted environmental changes attributable to ENSO. Like PDO, changes associated with ENSO result in increased surface water temperatures. Evidence indicates that prey fish are substantially depressed during ENSO. (Reports of Read, Landry, and Stewart).

According to these experts, the extent to which these PDO and ENSO warming cycles have affected depleted marine mammal stocks is unknown, but potentially significant. One expert concluded that it is unlikely that the ecological structure of the ETP has changed substantially in a way that could significantly impede or promote the population growth of depleted stocks. (Report of Andrew Read). Others, expressed a different view. In Landry's view, “such changes provide a credible explanation for at least part of the observed slow recovery of dolphin stocks * * *.” In the view of Stewart, “the argument is persuasive that the carrying capacity of the ETP, relative to the ecologies and life histories of northern offshore spotted dolphins and eastern spinner dolphins, is lower now (and the past several or more years), that [sic] it was prior to and during the early phase of the fishery.” Moreover, Stewart concludes that depleted stocks had begun to recover after direct mortality declined below the replacement rate in the 1980s, but that this recovery may have been interrupted by warm water events in the 1990s. Barber notes that, “There are indications that the biological productivity of the ETP has changed in response to the low-frequency physical variability known as PDO. These indications, while speculative, require that we not rule out the possibility that the carrying capacity of the ETP for dolphins has declined and that this decline has affected recovery of the population. * * * We also cannot rule out the possibility that the ecological structure of the ETP has changed substantially in a way that could impede the recovery of the dolphin stocks.”

Panel experts agree with NOAA's view that there is insufficient information to adequately assess the existence or magnitude of ecosystem changes, or the extent to which these changes have impacted depleted dolphins. As one expert noted, “* * * we do not have a sufficient understanding of the structure or function of the ETP ecosystem to answer this question. Our knowledge of the ecological interactions of dolphins and other ecosystem components, including yellowfin tuna, is so rudimentary that in most cases, we cannot predict whether a particular environmental change might promote or impede the population growth of dolphins. Furthermore, we do not have a sufficient time-scale of observations to allow tests of hypotheses regarding such ecological changes and their effects.” (Report of Andrew Read).

Comments of the IATTC state that between 1986-1990 and 1998-2000, population surveys indicate that large numbers of non-depleted dolphins moved into the fishery off Central America. By competing for common food sources, this migration could have significantly affected the carrying capacity of depleted dolphins and hindered recovery. The MMC commented that available information is insufficient to support a conclusion that ecosystem changes have impacted dolphin recovery, but the MMC provided no additional information on this point.

Based upon the above information, remaining data gaps, and expert opinions, NOAA Fisheries cannot determine whether the carrying capacity of the ETP for dolphins has declined substantially or that the ecological structure of the ETP has changed substantially in a way that could impede depleted dolphin stocks from growing at rates expected in a static ecosystem.

The Direct Mortality Question. For any depleted stock, does the estimate of the total fishery-attributed dolphin mortality, obtained by adding together estimates of direct mortality and, where appropriate, quantifiable levels of indirect mortality, exceed the mortality standard considered appropriate by the Secretary?

Direct mortality as reported by observers is a known and easily quantifiable impact of the tuna purse seine fishery on depleted ETP dolphin stocks. To answer this question, NOAA Fisheries calculated the potential biological removal (PBR) levels for each depleted dolphin stock in the ETP. The PBR is the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size. Direct mortality and estimates of indirect mortality (where appropriate) were compared to the PBR levels and other mortality standards for each stock. Additionally, possible changes in the carrying capacity and/or the ecosystem structure of the ETP were considered but deemed scientifically inconclusive.

The ODP calls for comparison between the level of direct mortality and a “mortality standard considered appropriate by the Secretary.” The ODP therefore allows flexibility in determining what the threshold should be, specifically because the results of analyses on indirect mortality as well as ecosystem changes might have called for a threshold lower than PBR. For example, if there had been sufficient sample sizes to make population-level inferences of the impact of indirect effects, and/or if there had been strong evidence of a dramatic reduction in carrying capacity due to ecosystem changes, then a level of mortality close to PBR might have been considered too high.

The average of the abundance estimates for the most recent surveys are 641,153 northeastern offshore spotted dolphins, 448,608 eastern spinner dolphins, and 143,725 coastal spotted dolphins. The coefficients of variation (CV) for these estimates are approximately 17%, 23%, and 36%, respectively. CV is a measure of the variability of the estimate. Much of the essential information regarding coastal spotted dolphins is lacking, especially from the early years of the fishery. This lack of information prevents NOAA Fisheries from further refining the precision of this stock's abundance estimation.

Reported levels of dolphin mortality for each stock have been very low in recent years (far less than PBR levels for approximately a decade) and have only rarely exceeded the strict stock-specific mortality limits set forth by the IDCP. These stock mortality limits (SMLs) are roughly 10% of the PBR standard. For this decision, the PBR standard, an established standard of mortality, provides the best insight into the significance of reported mortality to the dolphin stocks. By contrast, SMLs are not strictly science-based values, but rather reflect the lowest possible mortality achievable by the fishery and values that should be biologically insignificant to dolphin stocks. Comparing reported mortality to established standards of mortality, such as the PBR and the SML systems, can provide insight into the significance of reported mortality to the dolphin stocks. In 2001, the most recent year for which annual mortality estimates are available, the total reported mortality was 466 eastern spinner dolphins, 656 northeastern offshore spotted dolphins, and two spotted dolphins. PBR levels during this same time period were for 1298 eastern spinner dolphins, 2367 northeastern offshore spotted dolphins, and 1073 coastal spotted dolphins.

The only source of quantifiable information on levels of indirect mortality comes from investigations into the separation of cow-calf pairs during fishing operations. Analyses of purse seine sets from 1973 to 1990, in which all killed dolphins were examined, led to the conclusion that there is some separation of calves from their mothers. Based on reasonable assumptions about length of nursing dependency, NOAA Fisheries estimated that mortality was underestimated by 10-15% for spotted dolphins and 6-10% for spinner dolphins in this sample. Reported mortality for 2001, when combined with cow-calf separation estimates, is approximately: 31% of PBR for northeastern offshore spotted dolphin and 39% of PBR for eastern spinner dolphin. There is currently no way to quantify indirect mortality for coastal spotted dolphins. Therefore, direct mortality is based on that reported by the on-board observer programs and is only 0.2% of PBR for coastal spotted dolphin. When reported mortality for 2001 is combined with the estimate of cow-calf separation, quantifiable direct mortality is well below the PBR level for each stock.

NOAA Fisheries has a relatively high degree of confidence in both the dolphin abundance estimates and in a minimum estimate of mortality owed to cow-calf separation. Additionally, the IDCP utilizes 100% observer coverage to obtain dolphin mortality information, so unlike most other fisheries around the world, dolphin mortality is enumerated rather than estimated. Based on these data, information regarding dolphin mortality in the fishery obtained through the IDCP, and in consideration of the opinions of the Ecosystem Expert Panel, direct mortality does not exceed PBR, or any other appropriate mortality standard, for any of the depleted dolphin stocks.

The Indirect Effects Question. For each stock, is the estimated number of dolphins affected by the tuna fishery, considering data on sets per year, mortality attributable to the fishery, indicators of stress in blood, skin and other tissues, cow-calf separation, and other relevant indirect effects information, at a magnitude and degree that would risk recovery or appreciably delay recovery to its optimum sustainable population (OSP) level (how and to what degree)?

While direct mortality from sources in the tuna fishery causes a known impact on dolphin stocks, there are possible means by which the fishery could be indirectly impacting dolphins. Therefore, an assessment of indirect effects is relevant to making the final finding. Sources of indirect mortality include cow-calf separation and may include other types of effects resulting from chase and capture, which could compromise the health of at least some of the dolphins involved. The answer to this question was based on information collected and/or evaluated by NOAA Fisheries, as well as on opinions of individual members of a panel of independent scientific experts in veterinary science, physiology, and other stress-related fields (the Indirect Effects Panel).

In the aggregate, available data suggest the possibility that purse-seining activities result in indirect effects that negatively impact dolphins. However, available data are insufficient to determine whether the fishery is causing indirect effects of sufficient magnitude to either risk recovery or appreciably delay recovery. Completed research has included a combination of field experiments, retrospective analyses, direct observation, and mathematical modeling, to address a broad range of stress-related effects and other factors that might lead to unobserved dolphin mortalities. These data, however, are insufficient to quantify potential population-level impacts or determine whether population recovery might be delayed, because sample sizes were small and baseline data unavailable. For example, in implementing a specifically mandated necropsy program that was conducted between 1998 and 2000, it was possible to obtain samples from only 56 dolphins; a number that is insufficient to make population-level inferences. Additionally, a chase-encirclement stress study, was conducted during August and October of 2001. Because of the experiment's complexity and logistical challenges, it was recognized from the outset that sample sizes for the studies would be limited and that population-level inferences were unlikely.

Notwithstanding these data limitations, NOAA Fisheries examined specific indirect effects that may negatively impact dolphin stocks. Specifically, NOAA Fisheries examined the possibility that cow-calf pairs are separated during chase and encirclement, causing the subsequent death of the calf. Analyses of purse-seine sets suggests that some separation occurs. However, more conclusive mortality estimates relative to chase do not exist, as direct observations currently are not feasible. Additional mortality associated with separation is possible in instances where dolphins are chased but not encircled. However, mortality estimates relative to chase do not exist, as direct observations are not feasible. Even if correct, estimates of confirmed indirect dolphin mortality due to cow-calf separation do not substantially increase the total levels of mortality for each stock.

Additionally, NOAA Fisheries investigated the frequency with which the fishery interacts with individual dolphins and with the dolphin stocks as a whole each year. For northeastern offshore spotted dolphins, there are over 5,000 dolphin sets per year, resulting in 6.8 million dolphins chased per year and 2.0 million dolphins encircled per year (on average for 1998-2000). For eastern spinner dolphins, there are about 2,500 sets per year, 2.5 million dolphins chased per year, and 300,000 dolphins encircled per year. For coastal spotted dolphins, there are about 154 sets per year, 284,300 dolphins chased per year, and 39,700 dolphins captured per year. NOAA Fisheries estimated that a northeastern offshore spotted dolphin is chased 10.6 and encircled 3.2 times, an eastern spinner dolphin is chased 5.6 and encircled 0.7, and a coastal spotted dolphin is chased 2.0 times and encircled 0.3 times per year on average. Unfortunately, there is much uncertainty surrounding these statistically estimated averages. Moreover, there are insufficient data to determine the impact of stress and other chase-related effects on dolphin populations. Additional research must be done on this before there will be sufficient data to yield definitive results.

Experts noted that there is inadequate information to make a determination on the existence or extent of indirect effects, as they relate to dolphin recovery. To assist the Secretary in answering this difficult question, a panel of five experts was asked to address the issue of indirect mortality. All five expert panelists indicated that indirect fishery effects, especially cow-calf separation and increased likelihood of predation, may account for the lack of expected dolphin recovery. The strength of their opinions varied greatly, however, noting the large amounts of uncertainty in the data. The IATTC noted that indirect effects (such as cow-calf separation, elevated stress hormones and enzymes, and heart damage) are speculative, given the absence of adequate data. The MMC provided no additional studies, but agreed that, “* * * existing information does not provide a sufficient basis for quantifying any increased levels of mortality that occur during chase operations, reproductive failure resulting from stress, facilitated predation, post-release capture myopathy, or disruption of the tuna-dolphin bond.”

In sum the available information on indirect effects, including much of the information regarding cow-calf separation, is limited, and therefore bars population-level inferences of the effects of stress on dolphin stocks. Additional research is necessary to better understand these more complex effects on dolphin stocks. Accordingly, the best available information, including data on sets per year, mortality attributable to the fishery, indicators of stress in blood, skin and other tissues, cow-calf separation, the Expert Panel opinions, and other relevant information, indicates that indirect effects caused by purse-seine fishing are not impacting dolphins to a degree that would risk or appreciably delay recovery to optimum population levels.

The Growth Rate Question. For each depleted dolphin stock, is the observed population growth rate sufficient to ensure that each stock's recovery to OSP is not appreciably delayed?

To answer this question, NOAA Fisheries fit a population model to a time series of research vessel abundance estimates, using the time series of estimates of the incidental mortality from tuna vessel observer data (TVOD) collected by IATTC and national program observers, as well as TVOD as indices of abundance in a subset of the analyses. NOAA Fisheries also estimated growth rates for each dolphin stock and measures of uncertainty for each estimate. Finally, assessments from the members of the Ecosystem Panel were used when considering the estimated growth rates.

The assessment modeling produced additional information on the current depletion levels of two of the three depleted dolphin stocks. Depleted means that a marine mammal population's abundance is less than 60% of its carrying capacity or the maximum size of a particular population that can be sustained within a given area or habitat. Northeastern offshore spotted dolphins are at 20% and eastern spinner dolphins at 35% of their pre-fishery population levels and thus remain depleted under the MMPA. Similar estimates for coastal spotted dolphins are unavailable, due to a lack of data on fishery-related mortality and time-series abundance estimates from the early years of the fishery.

NOAA Fisheries estimated a “one-slope” and “two-slope” model of growth rates for dolphin populations. While the one-slope model assumes a constant growth over the period studied, the two-slope model allows for a change in the growth rate. The one-slope model indicates that the dolphin stocks are growing at low rates (1-2%) although there is a 95% confidence that they are not declining. The two-slope model results indicate that the growth rate decreased, but was still positive, for one stock but became negative for a second stock during this past decade. The two models produce roughly equally probable results.

Another important consideration in assessing the impact of the fishery on depleted stocks is to determine the time to recovery for these stocks under current conditions. Using the growth rates mentioned above in a population model, estimated times to recovery were determined for these two stocks. When abundances of the depleted stocks are projected into the future, the one-slope model predicts recovery in 78 years for northeastern offshore spotted dolphins, and in 65 years for eastern spinner dolphins. The two-slope model, having roughly equivalent support by the data, predicts that neither stock would recover in at least 200 years. This two- slope model shows that the northeastern offshore spotted dolphin abundance would stay constant, while eastern spinner abundance would decline, assuming that there have been no change in carrying capacity since the late 1950s.

Advancements in the development of Internet Protocol (IP) technologies are expanding the viability of IP-based networks to support additional features, including the transmission of voice, commonly referred to as VoIP. While traditional telephone service uses circuit-switched technology to establish a dedicated line between communicating parties, VoIP applications use packet-switched technology that divides the voice transmission into packets of data and sends them over the fastest available route. VoIP systems may use bandwidth more efficiently and may represent cost savings for providers and subscribers by using a single network for both voice and data. VoIP has been developing over the last decade, with a number of companies already deploying the service or announcing introduction in the near future.

NTIA's roundtable will address the issues necessary to understand VoIP, how it works, the marketplace trends, and the impacts VoIP may have on communications and information policies and regulations. As the principal adviser to the President on communications and information policies, NTIA is vested with “[t]he authority to conduct studies and make recommendations concerning the impact of the convergence of computer and communications technology.” 47 U.S.C. § 902(M). The roundtable dialogue will help the Administration to better understand the technology, its relation to the telecommunications market, especially to broadband, and prepare for participation in other venues, including the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).

The roundtable will be divided into three sessions. First, NTIA will present a brief overview of VoIP, featuring a demonstration of VoIP technology using the Commerce Department's newly-installed VoIP telephone system. Two panel discussions will follow: the first panel will focus on the VoIP marketplace, and the second panel will address policy considerations for VoIP. Each of these sessions will also include a brief audience question and answer session.

The roundtable will be webcast. A final, updated copy of the agenda, including a link for the webcast will be available on NTIA's web page at www.ntia.doc.gov .

This meeting will be open to the public. Seating for public attendees is limited and is available on a first-come, first served basis. The roundtable will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Any member of the public wishing to attend and requiring special services, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, should contact Jennifer Guy (see contact information above) at least three (3) days prior to the meeting.

The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) directs federal agencies to implement electronic commerce systems that will enable the collection and dissemination of information while also ensuring the security and validity of information that is transmitted electronically. In support of the GPEA and its own electronic filing initiatives, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has implemented Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) technology to support electronic commerce between the USPTO and its customers. PKI is a set of hardware, software, policies and procedures used to provide several important security services for the electronic business activities of the USPTO. Using PKI ensures the confidentiality of unpublished patent applications in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 122 and Article 30 of the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

In order to provide the necessary security for its electronic commerce system, the USPTO uses PKI technology to protect the integrity and confidentiality of information submitted electronically to the USPTO. PKI employs public and private encryption keys to authenticate the customer's identity and support secure communication between the customer and the USPTO. Customers may submit a request to the USPTO for a digital certificate, which enables the customer to download and use the Entrust cryptographic software to create the encryption keys necessary for electronic identity verification and secure transactions with the USPTO. This digital certificate is required in order to access secure online systems that are provided by the USPTO, such as obtaining patent application information through the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system or filing patent applications and related documents electronically.

This information collection includes the Certificate Action Form (PTO-2042), which is used by the public to request a digital certificate. This form is available for download from the USPTO Web site. This form may also be used by customers to request the revocation of a digital certificate or key recovery in the event of a lost or corrupted certificate. Requests for a certificate must include a notarized signature in order to verify the identity of the applicant. In addition, a Subscriber Agreement is included with the Certificate Action Form to ensure that customers understand their obligations regarding the use of the digital certificates as well as the Entrust software, which authorized users may download from the USPTO Web site. The Certificate Action Form collects personal information that is subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 and is covered by a System of Records Notice that was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 65, No. 80) on April 25, 2000.

By mail or hand delivery to the USPTO.

OMB Number: 0651-0045.

Form Number(s): PTO-2042.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions; farms; the Federal Government; and State, local or tribal governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 8,000 responses per year.

Estimated Time Per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to read the instructions and Subscriber Agreement, gather the necessary information, prepare, and submit the Certificate Action Form (PTO-2042).

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 4,000 hours per year.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden: $564,000 per year. The USPTO expects that the information in this collection will be prepared by attorneys and paraprofessionals, as well as independent inventors. Using the professional rate of $252 per hour for associate attorneys in private firms and the rate of $30 per hour for paraprofessionals and independent inventors, the USPTO estimates that the average hourly rate for all respondents for this collection will be $141 per hour. Therefore, the respondent cost burden for this collection will be $564,000 per year.

Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden: $2,960. There are no capital start-up or maintenance costs or filing fees associated with this information collection. However, customers may incur postage costs when submitting the Certificate Action Form to the USPTO by mail. The USPTO estimates that the first-class postage cost for a mailed Certificate Action Form will be 37 cents, for a total non-hour respondent cost burden in the form of postage costs of $2,960 per year.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, e.g. , the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Summary of Information Collection

Title 10, U.S.C., requires applicants to submit this form, to their Service representative, prior to participation in the Health Loan Repayment Program (HPLR). Lenders will verify the data submitted and respond back to the Service Representative. All loans must meet federal standards and be approved by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service prior to disbursement of funds.

Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must contact the DBB no later than Wednesday, January 22 for further information about admission as seating is limited.

Additionally, those who wish to make oral comments or deliver written comments should also request to be scheduled, and submit a written text of the comments by Tuesday, January 21 to allow time for distribution to the Board members prior to the meeting.

Individual oral comments will be limited to five minutes, with the total oral comment period not exceeding thirty-minutes.

The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 10485, as amended by EO 12038. Existing Presidential permits are not transferable or assignable. However, in the event of a proposed voluntary transfer of facilities, in accordance with the regulations at 10 CFR 205.323, the existing permit holder and the transferee are required to file a joint application with DOE that includes a statement of reasons for the transfer.

On April 19, 2001, DOE granted Presidential Permit PP-235-2 to ITC for four existing international electric transmission facilities that cross the U.S.-Canadian border. These permitted facilities include:

(1) One 230,000-volt (230-kV) transmission line, including one 675-MVA phase-shifting transformer connecting the Bunce Creek Station, located in Marysville, Michigan, with Hydro One's Scott Transformer Station, located in Sarnia, Ontario (identified as the B3N facility);

(2) One 230-kV transmission line connecting the Waterman Station, located in Detroit, Michigan, with Hydro One's J. Clark Keith Generating Station, located in Windsor, Ontario (identified as the J5D facility);

(3) One 345-kV transmission line connecting the St. Clair Generating Station, located in East China Township, Michigan, with Hydro One's Lambton Generating Station, located in Moore Township, Ontario (identified as the L4D facility); and

(4) One 230-kV transmission line connecting the St. Clair Generating Station with Hydro One's Lambton Generating Station (identified as the L51D facility).

Presidential permits originally were granted to Detroit Edison for the construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of these facilities. However, as a result of a series of corporate actions and divestitures, these facilities were transferred to ITC.

On January 6, 2003, ITC, ITC Holdings Corp., and DTE Energy Company (collectively, the “Applicants”) jointly filed an application with DOE to transfer Presidential Permit PP-230-2 from ITC to a new corporate entity that will be created following a series of corporate restructurings. The purpose of the joint application is to ensure that the authority contained in the Presidential permit will continue in force and be transferred from one corporate entity to the next as the series of corporate restructurings are accomplished and the subject facilities are voluntarily transferred. In the instant application, the Applicants indicate that there will be no physical changes to any of the existing permitted facilities and that the subject facilities will continue to be operated in accordance with all of the terms and conditions contained in Presidential Permit PP-230-2.

The Applicants are expecting that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will take final action on the series of corporate restructurings by February 20, 2003, and the Applicants have requested that DOE expedite the processing of this application so that a final decision on the request to transfer the Presidential permit be completed by that date. Accordingly, DOE has shortened the comment period for this proceeding to 15 days.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's rules of practice and procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before the date listed above.

Comments on the joint application to transfer Presidential Permit PP-230-2 should be clearly marked with Docket PP-230-3. Additional copies are to be filed directly with M. Douglas Dunn, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, NY 10005, R. Michael Sweeney and Bonnie A. Suchman, Troutman Sanders LLP, 401 9th Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004, and Raymond O. Sturdy, Jr., DTE Energy Company, 2000 2nd Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226.

Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, the DOE must determine that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. In addition, DOE must consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action ( i.e. , granting the Presidential permit, with any conditions and limitations, or denying the permit) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. DOE also must obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential permit application.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Fossil Energy Home Page at http://www.fe.doe.gov. Upon reaching the Fossil Energy Home page, select “Electricity Regulation,” and then “Pending Procedures” from the options menus.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; pesticides users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2002-0329. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. To access RED documents and RED fact sheets electronically, go directly to the REDs table on the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Home Page, at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket, but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2002-0329. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2002-0329. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency (7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2002-0329.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2002-0329. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

EPA has assessed the risks of asulam and reached a Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision (TRED) for this pesticide. Since no risk mitigation measures were adopted, asulam fits into its own risk cup--its individual, aggregate risks are within acceptable levels. The RED for asulam was completed in 1995. At that time, the Agency assessed the risk for dietary, worker, and ecological concerns. With the passage of FQPA, the tolerances for asulam needed to be reassessed according to the FQPA safety standard. In this current assessment, the Agency looked at only dietary concerns from food and drinking water.

Asulam is a selective postemergent systemic carbamate herbicide registered for sugarcane, christmas tree plantations, ornamentals, turf (use for sod farms only) and non-cropland uses (boundary fences, fencerows, hedgerows, lumberyards, storage areas and industrial facilities, and warehouse lots). There are no residential uses for asulam products.

Dietary risks for asulam are below the Agency's level of concern for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups. Drinking water risks are also below EPA's level of concern, therefore the Agency is not concerned with potential exposure to asulam through surface water and ground water.

The tolerance reassessment program is being conducted under Congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes both the need to make timely decisions and to involve the public. Therefore, EPA is issuing this TRED as a final document with a 60-day comment period. Although the 60-day public comment period does not affect the registrant's response due date, it is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the TRED. If any comment significantly affects a TRED, EPA will amend the TRED by publishing the amendment in the Federal Register .

The legal authority for this TRED falls under FIFRA, as amended in 1988 and 1996. Section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product-specific data on individual end-use products, and either reregistering products or taking “other appropriate regulatory action.”

This action is directed to the public in general. Although, this action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2002-0246. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although, a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP-2002-0246 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

1. By mail. Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket ID number OPP-2002-0246. Electronic comments also may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

This notice announces receipt by the Agency of applications from registrants to cancel certain pesticide products registered under section 3 of FIFRA. International Paint Inc. has voluntarily requested that EPA cancel two of its product registrations containing tributyltin compounds. Hempel Coatings (USA), Inc. has voluntarily requested that EPA cancel its sole product registration containing tributyltin compounds. These registrations are listed in Table 1 of this unit:

International Paint Inc. requested these actions in letters dated May 17, 2002 and June 3, 2002 for its products with EPA registration numbers 67543-8 and 2693-123, respectively. On June 19, 2002, International Paint Inc. requested that it be allowed to continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of these products until December 1, 2002. On July 26, 2002, International Paint Inc. waived the 180-day period that typically has been allowed before certain requests for voluntary cancellation are approved or denied.

Hempel Coatings (USA), Inc. requested the voluntary cancellation of its product with EPA registration number 10250-53 in a letter dated July 8, 2002. In that same letter, the registrant requested that it be allowed to continue to sell and distribute existing stocks of the subject product until December 31, 2002, and waived the 180-day period that typically has been allowed before certain requests for voluntary cancellation are approved or denied.

Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in ascending sequence by EPA company number:

Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register and provide a 30-day period for comments on the notice. Thereafter, the Administrator may act on such a request.

Both International Paint Inc. and Hempel Coatings (USA), Inc. have waived any right to withdraw their requests for voluntary cancellation of the products listed in Table 1 in Unit II.

The effective date of cancellation will be the date of the cancellation order. For purposes of the cancellation order that the Agency intends to issue at the close of the comment period for this announcement, the term “existing stocks” will be defined, pursuant to the Agency's statement of policy as prescribed in the Federal Register of June 26, 1991 (56 FR 29362) (FRL-3846-4). Exceptions to this general rule will be made if a product poses a risk concern, or is in noncompliance with reregistration requirements, or is subject to a data call-in. In all cases, product-specific disposition dates will be given in the cancellation orders.

Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which have been packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. Unless, the provisions of an earlier order apply, existing stocks already in the hands of dealers or users can be distributed, sold, or used legally until they are exhausted, provided that such further sale and use comply with the EPA-approved label and labeling of the affected product. Any sale, distribution, or use of existing stocks after the effective date of the cancellation order that is not consistent with the terms of the cancellation order will be considered a violation of section 12(a)(2)(K) and/or 12(a)(1)(A) of FIFRA, unless it is for purposes of shipping such stocks for relabeling, repackaging, export consistent with the requirements of section 17 of FIFRA, or disposal.

In the cancellation orders issued in response to the requests for voluntary cancellation cited in this notice, the Agency proposes to include the following provisions for treatment of any existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 in Unit II.

All sale, distribution, or use by International Paint Inc. of existing stocks of its affected products listed in Table 1 in Unit II. will be unlawful under FIFRA after December 1, 2002. Any stocks of such products not in the hands of the registrant may continue to be sold, distributed, and used until such stocks are exhausted.

All sale, distribution, or use by Hempel Coatings (USA), Inc. of existing stocks of its affected product listed in Table 1 in Unit II. will be unlawful under FIFRA after December 31, 2002. Any stocks of such products not in the hands of the registrant may continue to be sold, distributed, and used until such stocks are exhausted.

You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS 111)

• Animal production (NAICS 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2002-0339. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2002-0339. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2002-0339. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2002-0339.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2002-0339. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received a pesticide petition (9F6050) from Dow AgroSciences, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing tolerances for combined residues of fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester [1-methylheptyl ((4-amino-3,5-dicloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)acetate or fluroxypyr MHE] and its metabolite fluroxypyr [((4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)acetic acid], free and conjugated, all expressed as fluroxypyr, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities at 0.02 parts per million (ppm) for kernels plus cob with husk removed, and 1.0 ppm for forage. Tolerances for residues of fluroxypyr MHE in or on field corn are being proposed in support of this registration as follows: Grain, 0.02 ppm; forage, 1.0 ppm; and stover, 0.5 ppm. Tolerances for residues of fluroxypyr MHE in or on sorghum as follows: Sorghum grain, 0.02 ppm; sorghum forage, 2.0 ppm; sorghum stover, 4.0 ppm. Tolerances for residues of fluroxypyr MHE in or on grasses as follows: Grass forage, 120 ppm; grass hay, 160 ppm; and grass silage, 100 ppm. Based on the above tolerances and an animal feeding study, increased tolerances are also proposed for fluroxypyr MHE and fluroxypyr, expressed as combined residues of total fluroxypyr, in or on the following animal commodities: Milk of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep, 0.3 ppm; and kidney of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and sheep, 1.5 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

1. Plant metabolism . Fluroxypyr is a systemic herbicide that is readily translocated and rapidly converts to the acid form following absorption. Fluroxypyr moves readily throughout the plant via the phloem (nutrient transporting) system and to a lesser extent through the xylem (water-transporting). Fluroxypyr is distributed throughout the entire plant, including the meristems and other developing plant parts.

2. Analytical method . There is a practical method (GC with MS detection) for measuring levels of fluroxypyr MHE in or on food with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set for, the proposed tolerances. Fluroxypyr has been tested through the FDAs Multi-residue Methodology, Protocols C, D. and E. The results have been published in the FDA Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volume I.

3. Magnitude of residues . The metabolism of fluroxypyr MHE in plants and animals (goats and poultry) is adequately understood for the purposes of these tolerances. Magnitudes of residue studies were conducted for field corn, sweet corn, sorghum and grasses. A process products study was not conducted in field corn since residues of fluroxypyr MHE were not detected in corn grain at 5X the application rate. In addition, processing of sorghum was not conducted since residue data for flour are not required at this time because sorghum flour is used exclusively in the U.S. as a component for drywall, and not as either a human food or a feedstuff. No residues of fluroxypyr are expected in root or leafy vegetable crops grown in rotation to fluroxypyr-treated field corn, sweet corn, sorghum, and grasses, after a 30-day plant-back interval at the maximum allowable label rate of 8 oz active ingredient/Acre. Field corn, sweet corn, sorghum and grasses grown in rotation may contain low levels of fluroxypyr residues; however, the tolerance values proposed for these crops will adequately assure compliance with the labeled use patterns.

1. Acute toxicity . Fluroxypyr MHE has low acute toxicity. The rat oral LD 50 is > 5,000 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg), the rabbit dermal LD 50 is > 2,000 mg/kg, and the rat inhalation LC 50 is > 1.0 mg/L (1,000 mg/cubic meter). In addition, fluroxypyr MHE is not a skin sensitizer in guinea pigs, has no dermal irritation in rabbits, and shows mild ocular irritation in rabbits. The end use formulation of fluroxypyr MHE has a similar low acute toxicity profile.

2. Genotoxicity . Short-term assays for genotoxicity consisting of a bacterial reverse mutation assay (Ames test), an in vitro assay for cytogenetic damage using the Chinese hamster ovary cells, an in vitro chromosomal aberration assay using rat lymphocytes, and an in vivo cytogenetic assay in the mouse bone marrow (micronucleus test) have been conducted with fluroxypyr MHE. These studies show a lack of genotoxicity. In addition, short-term assays for genotoxicity consisting of an Ames metabolic activation test, possible induction of point mutations at the HGPRT-Locus of Chinese hamster ovary cells, in vivo and in vitro chromosomal aberrations in the Chinese hamster ovary cells, unscheduled DNA synthesis in human embryonic cells, and an assay in mouse lymphoma cells have been conducted with fluroxypyr. These studies also show a lack of genotoxicity.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity . Developmental studies in rats and rabbits were conducted with both fluroxypyr MHE and fluroxypyr. Studies with fluroxypyr MHE showed maternal and fetal no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) of 300 mg/kg/day (rat) and 500 mg/kg/day (rabbit). Studies with fluroxypyr showed NOAELs in the rat of 250 mg/kg/day for maternal effects and 500 mg/kg/day for fetal effects and a NOAEL in the rabbit of 250 mg/kg/day for both maternal and fetal effects. These studies show that fluroxypyr and fluroxypyr MHE are not teratogenic nor will they interfere with in utero development. Two multi-generation reproduction studies were conducted with fluroxypyr in rats. The first in Wistar rats showed no effect on fertility or reproductive performance and had a NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested). The second study in Sprague-Dawley rats showed a parental NOAEL for systemic effects of 100 mg/kg/day in male rats and 500 mg/kg/day in female rats. The NOAEL for reproductive effects was 750 mg/kg/day for males and 1,000 mg/kg/day for females (highest dose tested). The NOAEL for neonatal effects was 500 mg/kg/day.

4. Subchronic toxicity. Fluroxypyr MHE showed a NOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day in a 90-day rat dietary study and a 21-day rabbit dermal study. Ninety-day feeding studies with fluroxypyr showed NOAELs of 80 mg/kg/day (Wistar rats), 700 mg/kg/day (Fischer 344 rats), 1,342 mg/kg/day (male mice), and 1,748 mg/kg/day (female mice). In a 4-week dietary, range finding study with fluroxypyr in dogs, the NOAEL found was > 50 mg/kg/day.

5. Chronic toxicity . Based on chronic testing with fluroxypyr in the mouse, dog, and rat (two studies), a reference dose (RfD) of 0.8 mg/kg/day is proposed for fluroxypyr and fluroxypyr MHE. The RfD has incorporated a 100-fold safety factor to the NOAEL found in the rat chronic test. NOAELs found in the chronic dietary studies are as follows: 150 mg/kg/day (dog), 300 mg/kg/day (mouse), 80 mg/kg/day (Wistar rats), 100 mg/kg/day (male Fischer 344 rats), and 500 mg/kg/day (female Fischer 344 rats).

6. Animal metabolism . Both fluroxypyr and fluroxypyr MHE have been evaluated in rat metabolism studies. In summary, these studies show that fluroxypyr MHE is rapidly hydrolyzed and the fate of the hydrolysis products, fluroxypyr and 1-methylheptanol, are independent of whether they were given as the ester or the acid. Fluroxypyr, per se , was extensively absorbed and rapidly excreted principally unchanged in the urine; 1-methylheptanol also was rapidly absorbed and rapidly eliminated. Repeated administration of fluroxypyr MHE was not associated with accumulation in tissues. Also, the metabolism and pharmacokinetics of 1-methylheptanol are comparable to that of the methylheptyl portion of fluroxypyr MHE.

7. Metabolite toxicology . Administration of fluroxypyr, as the acid or methylheptyl ester, in a variety of toxicological studies has produced similar effects. The principal response to sufficiently high dosages, whether administered over the short-term or, in some cases, over a lifetime, was nephrosis. Fluroxypyr is an organic acid that is actively excreted into the urine by the kidney. Thus, the target organ and dose response relationship for fluroxypyr toxicity is entirely consistent with the data on the toxicokinetics of fluroxypyr. Metabolism studies have shown that fluroxypyr MHE is rapidly and completely hydrolyzed to fluroxypyr acid and methylheptanol.

8. Endocrine disruption . There is no evidence to suggest that fluroxypyr and fluroxypyr MHE have an effect on any endocrine system.

1. Dietary exposure — Acute dietary exposure and risk . A Tier I acute dietary exposure and risk assessment was conducted. Potential dietary exposure and risk was estimated using DEEM TM software (Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model, Version 7.075, Novigen Sciences, Inc., Washington, DC). A deterministic analysis was conducted by combining the distribution of single-day food consumption events with residues assumed at tolerance levels for each commodity to obtain a distribution of exposure. In this report, acute dietary risk was assessed at the 95th percentile of exposure.

i. Food . Very conservative assumptions were made in this dietary risk assessment. The dietary exposure assessment was based on all commodities with tolerances for fluroxypyr established at 40 CFR 180.535 together with proposed tolerances for field corn, sweet corn, grain sorghum, and forage grass and hay, including revised tolerances for milk and meat. It was assumed that fluroxypyr residues were present at tolerance or proposed tolerance levels and that 100% of the crops were treated. The USDA food consumption data from 1989-92 were used by DEEM in estimating acute dietary exposure. Acute dietary risk was assessed using an acute RfD of 1.25 mg/kg/day, based on a maternal NOAEL of 125 mg/kg/day from a rat developmental toxicity study and an uncertainty factor of 100 (10X for interspecies extrapolation and 10X for intraspecies variation). There was no indication of increased susceptibility in young animals to prenatal or postnatal exposure to fluroxypyr in the toxicology studies. Therefore, an FQPA additional safety factor for infants and children was not included in this assessment. Acute dietary exposure at the 95th percentile for females 13 to 50 years old is estimated at 0.004939 mg/kg/day, which occupies 0.4% of the acute RfD. Pregnant females are estimated to have acute dietary exposure of 0.006582 mg/kg/day at the 95th percentile, which occupies 0.53% of the acute RfD. Adverse effects are not expected for exposures occupying 100% or less of the RfD. Therefore, acute dietary exposure and risk are well within acceptable levels.

A chronic dietary assessment estimated that dietary exposure would occupy only 0.4% of the RfD for the overall U.S. population and 1.3% of the RfD for children 1 to 6 years of age, the population subgroup estimated to be most highly exposed.

ii. Drinking water — Acute drinking water exposure and risk . There are no established Maximum Contaminant Levels for residues of fluroxypyr in drinking water and health advisory levels for fluroxypyr in drinking water have not been established.

Potential drinking water concentrations of fluroxypyr were estimated in ground water and surface water using the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) and the Generic Expected Environmental Concentration (GENEEC) models, respectively. Both GENEEC and SCI-GROW are Tier I screening level models that use conservative assumptions. SCI-GROW estimates pesticide concentrations in shallow, highly vulnerable ground water. GENEEC simulates a 1 hectare by 2 meters deep edge of the field farm pond that receives pesticide runoff from a treated 10 hectare field. The estimated concentration of fluroxypyr in ground water according to SCI-GROW is 0.16 μg/L. The estimated peak concentration of fluroxypyr in surface water using GENEEC is 20.88 μg/L.

To calculate the Drinking Water Levels of Concern (DWLOC) for acute exposure relative to an acute toxicity endpoint, the acute dietary exposure (from the DEEM analysis) was subtracted from the acute RfD to obtain the acceptable upper limit of fluroxypyr in drinking water for acute exposure. DWLOCs were then calculated using default values for adult female body weight (60 kg) and water consumption (2 L/day).

The upper-bound estimated fluroxypyr concentration in ground water (0.16 μg/L) and surface water (20.88 μg/L) are substantially below the acute DWLOCs of 37,352 μg/L and 37,303 for females 13 to 50 years old and pregnant females, respectively. Aggregated acute fluroxypyr exposure for pregnant females and females 13 to 50 years old resulting from dietary exposure and upper-bound drinking water exposure is well within acceptable limits of exposure and risk.

The chronic DWLOC for both the overall U.S. population and children 1 to 6 years of age was over 3,000-fold greater than residue levels in surface water or ground water estimated by conservative screening-level models. Therefore, chronic exposure and risk is expected to be well within acceptable levels.

2. Non-dietary exposure . The proposed use of fluroxypyr on residential turf presents the potential for non-occupational, non-dietary (or residential) exposure. Transferable foliar residue data from a fluroxypyr study on turf was used instead of default residue values.

Post-application dermal exposure for adults and toddlers was estimated for the day of application (day 0) since the exposure potential is greatest at this time. Transferable residue of fluroxypyr from turf was found to range from 0.03 to 0.74% (used as a high end stimate) of the fluroxypyr applied and to dissipate with a half-life ranging from 1.4 to 2.5 days.

Homeowners may be exposed to fluroxypyr during application to turf and also may have dermal exposure due to post-application activity on the treated turf.

Homeowner exposure during the application of fluroxypyr to turf includes both dermal and inhalation exposure. Surrogate dermal and inhalation exposure data from Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED V1.1) was used in estimating applicator exposure. The PHED surrogate data used to estimate exposure assumes residential applicator attire to include short pants, short-sleeve shirt, and no gloves. The applicator exposure estimate was based on a broadcast application using a garden hose end sprayer. Applicator dermal and inhalation exposure was estimated to be 0.0986 mg/kg/day and 0.00003 mg/kg/day, respectively.

Adult post-application dermal exposure from treated turf on the day of application was estimated to be 0.0172 mg/kg/day. The combined dermal exposure from application along with post-application activity is 0.1158 mg/kg/day (0.0986 mg/kg/day + 0.0172 mg/kg/day). Oral post-application exposure is not expected for adults and was not included in this assessment. The Margin of Exposure (MOE) for dermal exposure is 8,635 and for inhalation exposure 2,666,667. These MOEs are substantially greater than 100, indicating that risk from these potential exposures is well within an acceptable level.

Consistent with the scenario described above for the general adult population, female adult homeowners may experience exposure to fluroxypyr during application to turf as well as from post-application exposure. Female applicator dermal and inhalation exposure was estimated to be 0.115 mg/kg/day and 0.00004 mg/kg/day, respectively. Additionally, female adults may also experience post-application dermal exposure from treated turf on the day of application. Post-application dermal exposure for females was estimated to be 0.0201 mg/kg/day. Since dermal absorption is assumed to be 100% and since both dermal and inhalation exposure are being evaluated against the same toxicity endpoint, total potential exposure from fluroxypyr use on turf can be estimated by simply adding the dermal and inhalation exposure. The combined exposure is 0.13514 mg/kg/day (0.115 mg/kg/day + 0.00004 mg/kg/day + 0.0201 mg/kg/day). Using a NOAEL of 125 mg/kg/day, the MOE is calculated to be 925 (125 mg/kg/day / 0.13514 mg/kg/day). The MOE for female adults as a result of potential dermal and inhalation exposure from residential use of fluroxypyr on turf is well above 100, indicating that risk is within acceptable levels.

Golfers may have dermal exposure to fluroxypyr due to post-application activity on the treated turf. Dermal exposure for adult golfers was estimated on the day of treatment (day 0) to provide a high-end estimate of exposure. Exposure was estimated based on a transfer coefficient of 500 cm 2 /hr ( 1 ) and an exposure time of 4 hours. Exposure was estimated to be 0.001186 mg/kg/day. A MOE of 843,170 was calculated based on an assumption of 100% dermal absorption and a NOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day. Given a MOE of three orders of magnitude greater than 100, risk is well within acceptable levels.

Potential exposure for female golfers was estimated to be 0.001383 mg/kg/day. A MOE of 90,383 was calculated based on an assumption of 100% dermal absorption and a NOAEL of 125 mg/kg/day. The MOE is substantially greater than 100, indicating that risk is well within acceptable levels.

Toddlers may have exposure due to post-application activity on treated turf. When a pesticide in liquid formulation is applied to turfgrass, toddlers may experience post-application exposure through dermal exposure and also through oral exposure due to hand-to-mouth transfer of pesticide residue, ingestion of treated turfgrass and incidental ingestion of soil from treated areas.

Toddler post-application dermal exposure from treated turf on the day of application was estimated to be 0.0288 mg/kg/day. Oral exposure due to hand-to-mouth transfer of residues was estimated to be 0.0011 mg/kg/day. Oral exposure due to ingestion of treated grass was estimated to be 0.0019 mg/kg/day. Combined oral exposure from hand-to-mouth transfer of residues and ingestion of treated grass is 0.0030 mg/kg/day (0.0011 mg/kg/day + 0.0019 mg/kg/day). The MOE for dermal exposure is 34,722 and oral exposure is 26,667, both of them well above 100, indicating that risk is well within acceptable levels.

Use of fluroxypyr on turf results in potential short-term residential exposure for adults and children. Potential short-term dietary and residential exposures were combined into aggregate MOE values. Potential exposure through drinking water was not included in the aggregate MOEs, but was evaluated in aggregate through use of a DWLOC calculated for short-term exposure. The aggregate MOEs for adults and toddlers ranged from 906 to 29,335, but all were well above 100, indicating an adequate margin of safety. Additionally, the short-term DWLOCs for toddlers and adults were over 3,000-fold greater than potential fluroxypyr residues in drinking water predicted by conservative screening level models. Therefore, aggregate short-term exposure and risk for children and adults is expected to be well within acceptable levels.

The potential for cumulative effects of fluroxypyr MHE and fluroxypyr and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity is also considered. There is no reliable information to indicate that toxic effects produced by fluroxypyr MHE and fluroxypyr would be cumulative with those of any other pesticide chemical. Thus, it is appropriate to consider only the potential risks of fluroxypyr MHE and fluroxypyr in an aggregate exposure assessment.

1. U.S. population . Acute dietary exposure for pregnant females to residues of fluroxypyr from current and proposed uses was estimated to occupy 0.53% of the acute RfD, indicating very little risk. Additionally, the acute DWLOC was calculated to be over 1,700 fold greater than potential fluroxypyr residue in drinking water predicted by conservative screening level models.

Potential dietary and residential exposures were combined into an aggregate MOE value. Those MOEs range from 906 to 29,335. The aggregate MOEs are well above 100, indicating risk is well within acceptable levels. Additionally, the DWLOCs were over 11,000-fold greater than potential fluroxypyr residue in drinking water. Chronic dietary exposure to residues of fluroxypyr from current and proposed uses was estimated to occupy 0.4% of the RfD. The DWLOC was calculated to be over 11,000 fold greater than potential fluroxypyr residue in drinking water.

It is concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general U.S. population, pregnant females or developing young from acute aggregate, short-term or chronic aggregate exposures to fluroxypyr residues from current and proposed uses.

2. Infants and children . FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA may apply an additional safety factor for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base. Based on the current toxicological data requirements, the data base for fluroxypyr MHE relative to prenatal and postnatal effects for children is complete. There were no indications of neurotoxicity and developmental toxicity was not observed in the absence of maternal toxicity. It is concluded that there is no indication of increased sensitivity of infants and children relative to adults and that an additional FQPA safety factor is not required.

The acute and short-term exposures were assessed for pregnant females to evaluate the risk for developmental toxicity and it was concluded that there was reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate acute or short-term exposures resulting from current and proposed uses of fluroxypyr.

Toddlers may experience short-term dermal and oral exposure to fluroxypyr as a result of post-application activities on treated residential turf. Additionally, there is the potential for exposure to fluroxypyr through residue in food and drinking water. Tier I assessments were conducted to develop very conservative estimates of potential exposure through residential, dietary and drinking water pathways.

Potential dietary and residential exposures were combined into an aggregate MOE value. The aggregate MOE was 5,120, well above 100, indicating risk is well within acceptable levels. Additionally, the DWLOC was over 3,000-fold greater than potential fluroxypyr residue in drinking water.

Chronic dietary exposure to residues of fluroxypyr from current and proposed uses was estimated to occupy 1.3% of the RfD for children 1 to 6 years old, the population subgroup predicted to be most highly exposed. Additionally, the DWLOC was calculated to be over 3,000 fold greater than potential fluroxypyr residue in drinking water predicted by conservative screening level models.

Thus, based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data and the conservative exposure assessment, it is concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from acute dietary, short-term and chronic aggregate exposures to fluroxypyr residues from current and proposed uses.

There are no Codex maximum residue levels established for residues of fluroxypyr MHE and fluroxypyr on any food or feed crop.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

•  Crop production (NAICS code 111)

• Animal production (NAICS code 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532)

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2002-0356. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2002-0356. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2002-0356. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2002-0356.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2002-0356. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received a pesticide petition (3E6517) from the Interregional Research Project Number (IR-4), 681 U.S. Hwy. #1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR 180.572 by establishing tolerances for residues of bifenazate, (diazinecarboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-[1,1′-biphenyl]-3-yl),1-methylethylester) in or on the following raw agricultural commodities (RACs): Vegetable, cucurbit, group at 0.6 part per million (ppm); vegetable, fruiting, group at 2.0 ppm; peppermint, tops at 25 ppm; spearmint, tops at 25 ppm; nut, tree, group at 0.2 ppm; almond, hulls at 10 ppm; okra at 2.0 ppm; and pistachio at 0.2 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition. This notice includes a summary of the petition prepared by Crompton Manufacturing Company, Inc. (formerly Uniroyal Chemical Company), Middlebury, CT 06749.

1. Plant metabolism . The nature of the residues of bifenazate in plants is adequately understood. The major residue in all plant metabolism studies is bifenazate. A minor, but significant metabolite is the diazene D3598, which was found to interconvert readily to/from bifenazate in the plant matrix during the analytical procedure.

2. Analytical method . Crompton has developed practical analytical methodology for detecting and measuring residues of bifenazate in or on RACs. As D3598, a significant metabolite, was found to interconvert readily to/from bifenazate, the analytical method was designed to convert all residues of D3598 to the parent compound (bifenazate) for analysis. The method utilizes reversed phase high performance liquid chromotography (HPLC) to separate the bifenazate from matrix derived interferences, and oxidative coulometric electrochemical detection for the identification and quantification of this analyte.

1. Acute toxicity . Bifenazate technical, acramite-50WS, and floramite SC have low acute oral, dermal, and inhalation toxicity in laboratory animals. The oral lethal dose LD 50 in rats and mice is greater than 5 grams/kilogram (g/kg) for acramite-50WS and the technical material. The oral LD 50 of floramite SC is greater than 5 g/kg in males and greater than 2 g/kg in females. The dermal LD 50 in rats of bifenazate technical and both formulations is greater than 5 g/kg. The inhalation lethal concentration LC 50 in the rats of bifenazate technical, acramite-50WS and floramite SC was found to be greater than 4.4, 5.2, and 1.8 milligrams/liter (mg/L), respectively. In eye irritation studies, acramite-50WS was a slight irritant, and bifenazate technical was non-irritating. Floramite SC was found to be irritating to the eyes. All 3 products were found to be non-irritating to the skin of rabbits and non-sensitizing on the skin of guinea pigs.

2. Genotoxicity . Bifenazate was evaluated and found to be negative in the Ames Reverse Mutation, Mouse Lymphoma, chinese hamster ovary (CHO) chromosome aberration and mouse micronucleus assays.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity —i. Rabbit developmental study. A range-finding study conducted in pregnant New Zealand white rabbits at dosage levels of 125, 250, 500, 750, and 1,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) demonstrated maternal toxicity at dosage levels of 500 mg/kg/day and greater and abortions at dosage levels of 250 mg/kg/day and greater. Bifenazate was then administered by oral gavage to pregnant New Zealand white rabbits at dosage levels of 10, 50, and 200 mg/kg/day. No test article related effects were seen at any dose level. The no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) for maternal and developmental toxicity was greater than 200 mg/kg/day.

ii. Rat developmental study. Bifenazate did not produce developmental toxicity when administered by oral gavage to pregnant Sprague-Dawley CD rats at dosage levels of 10, 100, and 500 mg/kg/day. A reduction in maternal body weight gain was seen at dosage levels of 100 and 500 mg/kg/day. Clinical observations at 500 mg/kg/day included red material/staining on body surfaces, pale extremities, and brown discharge. No developmental or teratogenic effects were observed at any dosage level. The NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 10 mg/kg/day and the NOAEL for developmental toxicity was greater than 500 mg/kg/day.

iii. Rat reproduction study. Bifenazate showed no effects on reproduction when fed to 2-generations of male and female Sprague-Dawley CD rats at dietary concentrations of 20, 80, and 200 ppm. At a dosage level of 200 ppm there was a reduction in body weight gain in F0 males and females. Food consumption was unaffected. There was a reduction in body weight gain in F1 females at all dosage levels and in F1 males at 80 and 200 ppm in the absence of effects on food consumption. Since the 20 ppm F1 males did not have a significant reduction in body weight gain, this dosage level can be considered a NOAEL for systemic adult toxicity. The reduction in body weight gain in the F1 females at 20 ppm would not be considered biologically significant because no effects were observed on reproductive parameters or in the F2 litter. The reproductive and developmental NOAEL was greater than 200 ppm (10 mg/kg/day).

4. Subchronic toxicity —i. Thirteen-week rat feeding study . Bifenazate was fed to male and female Sprague Dawley CD rats for 13 weeks at dietary concentrations of 40, 200, and 400 ppm. At dosage levels of 200 and 400 ppm there was a reduction in red blood cell (RBC) count and hemoglobin (Hgb). Food intake was reduced for 200 ppm females and 200 and 400 ppm males. Histopathological effects were seen in the liver, spleen, and adrenal cortex in males and females at 200 and/or 400 pm. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was exceeded in females at 200 ppm and in males and females at 400 ppm. The NOAEL for subchronic toxicity in rats was 40 ppm (2 mg/kg/day).

ii. Neurotoxicity assessment. No treatment related effects were seen on neuro-behavior in a Standard Functional Observation Battery conducted at weeks 8 and 13 of the rat feeding study. No overt signs of anti-cholinergic activity, and no statistically significant effects on cholinesterase (ChE) activity were seen in rats in a 2-week feeding study at dose levels up to 400 ppm. Plasma, erythrocyte and brain ChE activity were evaluated in male and female rats fed bifenazate-treated diet at 0, 20, 200, or 400 ppm for 2 weeks. All animals survived until study termination and effects were only seen on body weight gain and food consumption. The NOAEL for cholinergic inhibition was greater than 400 ppm (20 mg/kg/day).

iii. Thirteen-week dog feeding study. Bifenazate was fed to male and female Beagle dogs for 13 weeks at dietary concentrations of 40, 400, and 1,000 ppm. At dosage levels of 400 and 1,000 ppm there was a reduction in RBC count, Hgb and hematocrit (HCT). Liver weights were increased at 400 and 1,000 ppm and centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy was seen in females at 400 ppm and males and females at 1,000 ppm. The NOAEL for subchronic toxicity in dogs was 40 ppm (1 mg/kg/day).

5. Chronic toxicity —i. Dog chronic feeding study . Bifenazate was fed to male and female Beagle dogs for 1-year at dietary concentrations of 40, 400, and 1,000 ppm. At dose levels of 400 and 1,000 ppm, there was a reduction in food consumption in males and reduced body weight gain in males and females. There was a reduction in RBC count, Hgb, and HCT and an increase in bilirubin at 400 and 1,000 ppm. Histopathological effects on bone marrow, kidney, and liver were also seen at these dose levels. The NOAEL for chronic toxicity in dogs was 40 ppm (1 mg/kg/day).

ii. Rat chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study . Bifenazate was not carcinogenic in rats when fed to male and female Sprague-Dawley CD rats for 2 years at dietary concentrations of 20, 80, and 160 in females or 20, 80, and 200 ppm in males. Body weight gain was reduced in males and females at the high dosage levels. A reduction in RBC count and an increase in splenic pigment were seen in females at 160 ppm, while high dose males exhibited a reduction in total cholesterol and an increase in splenic pigment. At a dose level of 80 ppm there was a reduction in body weight gain, a decrease in RBC count and an increase in splenic pigment in females. There was no increase in tumor incidence in males or females as a result of bifenazate administration. The NOAEL for chronic toxicity in rats was 20 ppm (1 mg/kg/day).

iii. Mouse carcinogenicity study . Bifenazate was not carcinogenic when fed to male and female CD-1 mice for 18 months at dietary concentrations of 10, 100, and 175 ppm in females and 10, 100, and 225 ppm in males. Body weight gain was reduced in males and females at the high dose level. A reduction in RBC, total leukocyte and lymphocyte counts was seen in males at 225 ppm. There was no increase in tumor incidence in males or females as a result of bifenazate administration.

6. Animal metabolism . In rat, 14 C-bifenazate, 14 C-phenyl hydrazine carboxylic acid, 2-(4-methoxy-1,1-biphenyl-3-yl)-1-methylethyl ester was extensively metabolized when it was given orally in 2 dose levels low (10 mg/kg), and high (1,000 mg/kg). Although ⅔ of the dosed radioactivity was excreted in the feces, bifenazate depicted a good degree of absorption as indicated from the level of radioactivity in the bile. In the bile radioactivity study, about 70% of the C-14 was collected from the cannulated bile ducts of low dosed rats indicating an active level of absorption and enterohepatic circulation.

7. Metabolite toxicology . In a single dose oral toxicity limit test in rats, the oral LD 50 of the diazene product of bifenazate was estimated to be approximately 5,000 mg/kg. At 2 hours and at 7 days post-dosing, no effects were seen on erythrocyte cholinesterase inhibition (ChEI) in male or female rats. In addition, no effect on plasma ChEI was seen in male rats at 7 days only. Since this effect was seen only in plasma of females at one time point, it is most likely a pseudo-cholinesterase effect without biological significance. In a dermal toxicity screen, the LD 50 of the diazene was estimated to be > 2,000 mg/kg.

8. Endocrine disruption . There are no known reported adverse reproductive or developmental effects in domestic animals or wildlife as a result of exposure to this chemical. A standard battery of required toxicity tests have been conducted on bifenazate. No effects were seen in the reproduction or developmental studies to indicate that bifenazate has an effect on the endocrine system.

1. Dietary exposure . Based on dietary, drinking water, and non-occupational exposure assessments, there is reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population, any population subgroup, or infants and children from chronic exposure to bifenazate.

i. Food . Chronic dietary exposure was estimated using dietary exposure evaluation model DEEM TM tolerance levels, and 100% crop treated. Processing factors were used for apple and grape juice. The chronic dietary exposure to the U.S. population (total) was estimated as 0.003093 mg/kg bwt/day, and was 30.9% of the reference dose (RfD). Exposure to non-nursing infants, the highest exposed population subgroup, was 0.007238 mg/kg bwt/day (72.4% of the RfD), and exposure to children was 0.006627 mg/kg bwt/day (66.3% of the RfD).

ii. Drinking water . The residue of concern in drinking water was determined to be D1989. Chronic estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of D1989 in surface water and ground water were generated using FIRST and the screening concentration in ground water (SCI-GROW) (1 application at 0.75 lbs active ingredient/acre). The FIRST model generated an EEC of 0.114 part per billion (ppb), whereas, the SCI-GROW model generated an EEC of 0.0119 ppb. These EEC values are much lower than the drinking water levels of concern (LOC) (227 ppb for adults, 27.6 ppb for infants and children). Therefore, exposure to potential residues in drinking water is expected to be negligible.

2. Non-dietary exposure . Food uses described in this petition are strictly agricultural, and will not add to any residential non-dietary exposure that may exist.

The mechanism/mode of action of bifenazate on the mammalian RBC, which is the target organ in the species tested, remains to be elucidated. The lack of information on bifenazate mode of action precludes an assessment of cumulative effects.

1. U.S. population . Based on the toxicology data base and available information on anticipated residues, chronic dietary exposure to the U.S. population (total) was 30.9% of the RfD. Exposure to potential residues in drinking water is expected to be negligible, as drinking water levels of concern (DWLOCs) are substantially higher than modeled acute and long-term EECs. The margin of exposure (MOEs) from the limited potential for short-term exposure from residential uses was > 1,000. Based on these assessments, it can be concluded that there is reasonable certainty of no harm to the U.S. population or any population subgroup from exposure to bifenazate.

2. Infants and children . The chronic dietary exposure was 72.4% of the RfD for infants, and 66.3% for children. Exposure to potential residues in drinking water is expected to be negligible, as DWLOCs are substantially higher than modeled acute and long-term EECs. The MOEs from the limited potential for short-term exposure from residential uses was > 1,000. Based on these assessments, it can be concluded that there is reasonable certainty of no harm to infants and children from exposure to bifenazate.

There are no Codex or other international maxium residue levels (MRLs) on tolerances for the requested uses with the exception of cherries in Japan. In Japan, the following MRLs have been established: Citrus 0.2 and 1.0; apple 2.0; pear 2.0; peach 0.2; cherry 3.0; strawberry 3.0; watermelon 0.2; and tea 2.0. There are no other current MRLs or tolerances for bifenazate.

This action is directed to the public in general, but will be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders, including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides. The Agency has not attempted to describe all the persons or entities who may be interested in or affected by this action. If you have questions in this regard, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2002-0163. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. To access the TRED document and fact sheet electronically, go directly to the REDs table on the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs web site, at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm. For a complete list of available documents supporting the TRED, see the electronic version of the public docket, which is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments for documents that are open to public comment, to access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number or chemical name.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket, but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

EPA has assessed the risks associated with current and proposed food uses of primisulfuron-methyl, reassessed 24 existing tolerances, and reached a tolerance reassessment and risk management decision. The Agency is announcing the availability of the resulting report of the FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision for Primisulfuron-methyl, also known as a TRED.

EPA must review tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in effect when FQPA was enacted in August 1996, to ensure that these existing pesticide residue limits for food and feed commodities meet the safety standard established by the new law. Tolerances are considered reassessed once the safety finding has been made or a tolerance revocation occurs. EPA has reviewed and made the requisite safety finding for the tolerances established for residues of primisulfuron-methyl in/on raw agricultural commodities.

The Agency has determined that there are no dietary (food or drinking water) or aggregate risks of concern from the use of primisulfuron-methyl, so mitigation of these risks is not necessary. EPA is able to make the FQPA safety finding for all current and proposed uses of primisulfuorn-methyl. Therefore, 23 existing tolerances for primisulfuron-methyl have been reassessed and remain unchanged, and 1 tolerance on sweet corn will be revoked because current labels prohibit use on sweet corn. Although EPA is considering a petition for a new use on Kentucky bluegrass grown for seed, the Agency has not yet made a decision to register this new use or establish any associated tolerances.

EPA works extensively with affected parties to reach the tolerance reassessment decisions presented in TREDs. Therefore, the Agency is issuing the primisulfuron-methyl TRED as a final decision without a formal public comment period.

System banks and the Funding Corporation entered into the original Market Access Agreement (MAA) on September 1, 1994, to help control the risk of each System bank by outlining each party's respective rights and responsibilities in the event the condition of a System bank fell below certain financial thresholds. As part of the original MAA, System banks and the Funding Corporation agreed to periodic reviews of the terms of the MAA to consider whether any amendments were appropriate. The Draft Restated MAA updates the original MAA and provides for more stringent financial performance requirements on each System bank.

The Draft Restated MAA, consistent with the approach of the original MAA, establishes certain financial thresholds at which conditions are placed on the activities of a bank or a bank's access to participation in Systemwide and consolidated obligations is restricted. The Draft Restated MAA establishes three categories, which are based on each bank's net collateral ratio, permanent capital ratio, and scores under the Contractual Inter-bank Performance Agreement (CIPA is an agreement among the System banks, the Farm Credit System Financial Assistance Corporation, and the Funding Corporation that establishes certain financial performance criteria).

As a bank's financial condition declines, it moves into Category I, then Category II, and finally Category III. When a bank reaches Category I, it is required to provide certain additional information to a committee of bank and Funding Corporation representatives established under the Draft Restated MAA, the Monitoring and Advisory Committee, including information as to how it will improve its financial condition. When a bank reaches Category II, in addition to being required to provide additional information, the bank is limited to joining in the issuance of Systemwide and consolidated obligations only in those amounts necessary for the bank to be able to roll over its maturing debt. When the bank reaches Category III, the bank is precluded from joining in the issuance of Systemwide and consolidated obligations.

The Draft Restated MAA includes provisions that enable a bank in Category II or III to request the opportunity to continue its access to the market. The Agreement also provides that the FCA may override a decision to impose Category III prohibitions on access to the market for a period of 60 days, which may be renewed for an additional 60-day period.

The original MAA continues in effect until the Draft Restated MAA is approved by the necessary parties, including FCA. The FCA is publishing the Draft Restated MAA for comment by any interested member of the public. The FCA will take these comments into consideration prior to the decision to approve the Draft Restated MAA.

Based on the foregoing, the FCA is now seeking public comment on the Draft Restated MAA as set forth below:

OMB Control No.: 3060-0810.

Title: Procedures for Designation of Eligible Telecommunications Carriers Pursuant to Section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 100.

Estimated Time Per Response: 60 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 6,200 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: 47 U.S.C. 214(e)(6) states that a telecommunications carrier that is not subject to the jurisdiction of a state may request that the Commission determine whether it is eligible. The Commission must evaluate whether such telecommunications carriers meet the eligibility criteria set forth in the Act. In an Order, the Commission concludes that petitions for designation filed under section 214(e)(6) relating to “near reservation” areas will not be considered as petitions relating to tribal lands and as a result, petitioners seeking ETC designation in such areas must follow the procedures set forth in the Twelfth Report and Order for non-tribal lands prior to submitting a request for designation to this Commission under section 214(e)(6).

OMB Control No.: 3060-0855.

Title: Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet, CC Docket No. 96-45.

Form No.: FCC Forms 499-A and 499-Q.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 5,500 respondents, 15,500 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 30 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual, quarterly, one-time and other reporting requirements, third party disclosure requirement, and recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 164,487 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: Pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, telecommunications carriers (and certain other providers of telecommunications services) must contribute to the support and cost recovery mechanisms for telecommunications relay services, numbering administration, number portability, and universal service. The Commission modified the existing methodology used to assess contributions that carriers make to the federal universal service support mechanisms. The modifications adopted will entail altering to the current revenue reporting requirements to which interstate telecommunications carriers are subject under part 54 of the Commission's rules.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0718.

Title: Part 101 Governing the Terrestrial Microwave Radio Service.

Form No: N/A.

Type of Review: Reinstatement without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 20,025 respondents; (1,025 reporting responses and 19,000 recordkeepers).

Estimated Time Per Response: 20,489 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and every 10 reporting requirements and recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 20,489 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $91,000.

Needs and Uses: Part 101 requires various information to be filed and maintained by the respondent to determine the technical, legal and other qualifications of applications to operate a station in the public and private operational fixed services. The information is also used to determine whether the public interest, convenience and necessity are being served as required by 47 U.S.C. 309. The Commission staff also uses this information to ensure that applicants and licensees comply with ownership and transfer restrictions imposed by section 310 of the Act.

A public notice, which announced the rechartering of the Consumer Advisory Committee (formerly known as the Consumer/Disability Telecommunications Advisory Committee), was released on December 31, 2002.

A copy of this notice also is available in alternate formats (Braille, cassette tape, large print or diskette) upon request. The notice also is posted on the Commission's Web site at www.fcc.gov/cgb/cac. Applications for membership on the Committee may be sent to the Commission via email addressed to Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Attn.: Scott Marshall, cac@fcc.gov , may be transmitted via facsimile to 202-418-6509, or may be sent via U.S. mail to 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5A824, Washington, DC 20554.

The establishment of the Committee was announced by public notice dated November 30, 2000, 15 FCC Rcd 23798, as published in the Federal Register (65 FR 76265, December 6, 2000). On November 20, 2002, the initial Charter of the Committee terminated. The Charter was renewed for another two year term, and the name of the Committee was changed to the Consumer Advisory Committee to better reflect its mandate and activities. The Committee is organized under, and will operate in accordance with, the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (1988).

The mission of the Committee is to make recommendations to the Commission regarding consumer issues within the jurisdiction of the Commission and to facilitate the participation of consumers (including people with disabilities and underserved populations, such as American Indians and persons living in rural areas) in proceedings before the Commission.

Each meeting of the full Committee will be open to the public. A notice of each meeting will be published in the Federal Register at least 15 days in advance of the meeting. Records will be maintained of each meeting and made available for public inspection.

The topics to be addressed by the Committee will include, but are not limited to, the following areas:

• Consumer protection and education ( e.g. , cramming, slamming, consumer friendly billing, detariffing, bundling of services, Lifeline/Linkup programs, customer service, privacy, telemarketing abuses, and outreach to underserved populations, such as Native Americans and persons living in rural areas).

• Access by people with disabilities ( e.g. , telecommunications relay services, closed captioning, accessible billing and access to telecommunications products and services).

• Impact upon consumers of new and emerging technologies ( e.g. , availability of broadband, digital television, cable, satellite, low power FM, and the convergence of these and emerging technologies).

• Implementation of Commission rules and consumer participation in the FCC rulemaking process.

During calendar year 2003, it is anticipated that the Committee will meet in Washington, DC for three one-day meetings on April 11, June 27, and November 14. In addition, as needed, working groups will be established to facilitate the Committee's work between meetings of the full Committee. Meetings will be fully accessible to individuals with disabilities.

The Commission seeks applications from interested organizations, from both the public and private sectors, that wish to be considered for membership on the Committee. Selections will be made on the basis of factors such as expertise and diversity of viewpoints that are necessary to address effectively the questions before the Committee. Applicants should be recognized experts in their fields, including, but not limited to, consumer advocacy, disabilities, underserved populations ( e.g. , persons living in rural areas and tribal communities), telecommunications infra-structure and equipment, telecommunications services (including wireless), and broadcast/cable services. The number of Committee members will be established to effectively accomplish the Committee's work. Organizations with similar interests are encouraged to nominate one person to represent their interests.

Members must be willing to commit to a 2-year term of service, should be willing and able to attend three 1-day meetings per year in Washington, DC, and are also expected to participate in deliberations of at least one working group. The Commission is unable to pay per diem or travel costs.

Applications should be received by the Commission no later than January 31, 2003, and should be sent to the Federal Communications Commission, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, Attn.: Scott Marshall, via e-mail to cac@fcc.gov, via facsimile to 202-418-6509 or via U.S. mail to 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5A824, Washington, DC 20554.

Due to the extensive security screening of incoming mail since September 11, 2001, delivery of mail sent to the FCC may be delayed. Therefore, we encourage submission by email or fax. If an application is sent via U.S. mail, we encourage applicants to follow up with a phone call to Scott Marshall, 202-418-2809, or 202-418-0179 (TTY), to confirm receipt. A specified application form is not required. However, applications should include the name of the organization, the representative's name, the name of an alternate representative, title, address and telephone number, a statement of the interests represented and the issues of interest to the applicant, and a detailed description of the applicant's knowledge and qualifications to serve on the Committee. The application should further be supported by a statement indicating a willingness to serve on the Committee for a 2 year period of time; a commitment to attend three 1-day meetings per year in Washington, DC at the applicant's own expense; and a commitment to work on at least one working group. Members will have an initial and continuing obligation to disclose any interests in, or connections to, persons or entities that are, or will be, regulated by or have interests before the Commission.

After the applications have been reviewed, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the appointment of the Committee members and the first meeting date of the Committee. It is anticipated that the first Committee meeting will take place on April 11, 2003.

This is a summary of the Commission's Order , DA 02-3371, released on December 5, 2002. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Federal Communications Commission Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Federal Communications Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202) 418-7365 or at bmillin@fcc.gov .

1. On October 18, 2002, 67 FR 69010, November 14, 2002, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB or Bureau) required all Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS), Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS), and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) (collectively, the “Services”) licensees and applicants in the Services to review licensing information and associated technical data. Specifically, licensees and applicants in the Services were required to verify the available information concerning their licenses and applications, make any necessary corrections concerning that data, and, under certain circumstances, submit corrections or responses to that data by December 17, 2002.

2. On November 25, 2002, the law firm of Troutman Sanders LLP requested a sixty-day extension of time, on behalf of several wireless cable clients, to comply with the BLS License Inventory Public Notice . On November 27, 2002, the Wireless Communications Association International and the National ITFS Association (WCA/NIA) jointly filed a similar request. For the reasons stated below, the FCC grants the requests in part and extends the time to respond to the BLS License Inventory Public Notice until February 3, 2003.

3. In their requests, Troutman Sanders and WCA/NIA argue that the process of reviewing the FCC's licensing records regarding the Services and preparing corrections is taking far longer than the Bureau anticipated because the vast majority of records require corrections or additional information. WCA/NIA assert that there are a limited number of people with the necessary experience with the MDS and ITFS licensing processes to evaluate the FCC's licensing records, determine whether corrections are needed, and prepare the necessary changes. WCA/NIA also represent that many ITFS licensees will be closed from the middle of December through the middle of January because of the holiday season.

4. Although the FCC does not routinely grant extensions of time, the importance of ensuring that the FCC's licensing records are accurate, and the challenges that licensees and applicants in the Services are facing, indicate that an extension of the December 17, 2002 deadline is appropriate. The FCC does not believe, however, that a sixty-day extension is warranted. In this connection, the FCC notes that electronic application filing has been suspended in the Services. The FCC is concerned that delays in the verification of licensing data and submission of corrections could unduly hinder the Bureau's efforts towards developing accurate licensing records and resuming electronic filing in the Services in an expeditious and efficient manner. Based upon the record before us, the FCC believes the current extension of time would be sufficient to allow licensees and applicants to respond to the BLS License Inventory Public Notice and provide any needed corrections. The February 3, 2003 date is beyond the mid-December to mid-January timeframe in which WCA/NIA identified that many ITFS licensees are closed for business. As a result of this extension, licensees and applicants in the Services will have had over 100 days to review the FCC's licensing records and prepare any necessary corrections and responses.

5. Pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and § 1.46 of the FCC's rules, 47 CFR 1.46, that the requests filed by Troutman Sanders LLP on November 24, 2002 and by the Wireless Communications Association International and the National ITFS Association on November 27, 2002 are granted to the extent stated herein and are otherwise denied in all other respects.

6. Pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and § 1.46 of the FCC's rules, 47 CFR 1.46, and that the time for licensees and applicants to respond to the BLS License Inventory Public Notice is extended until February 3, 2003.

7. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to §§ 0.131 and 0.331 of the FCC's rules, 47 CFR 0.131, 0.331.

This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's Public Notice, DA 02-3372, released on December 5, 2002. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Federal Communications Commission Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Federal Communications Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202) 418-7365 or at bmillin@fcc.gov. Licensees and applicants should visit http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/itfs&mds/licensing/inventory.html in order to review the tables. For all questions regarding technical aspects of public access to BLS data, contact the FCC Technical Support Hotline: Call 202-414-1250 (TTY 202-414-1255) or e-mail to ulscomm@fcc.gov. The hotline is available Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Time. All calls to the hotline are recorded.

On October 18, 2002, 67 FR 69529, November 18, 2002, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) issued a public notice requiring all Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS), Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS), and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) (collectively, the “Services”) licensees and applicants to review licensing information and associated technical data. Licensees and applicants are required to verify the available information concerning their licenses and applications, make any necessary corrections concerning that data, and, under certain circumstances, submit corrections or responses to that data by February 3, 2003. By this public notice, WTB clarifies two issues relating to the BLS License Inventory Public Notice.

First, with respect to licenses in the Services, if a licensee believes that all information pertaining to a license (including both the license tables and the additional technical information available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/itfs&mds/licensing/inventory.html) is accurate, the licensee is not required to submit a response with respect to that license. With respect to pending applications filed prior to March 25, 2002, however, a response is required even if all the information relating to that pending application is correct. Specifically, the applicant must: (1) affirm, in writing, within sixty days of the release of this public notice, that continued processing of the application is requested, by contacting the FCC at the addresses listed below, and (2) submit a copy of the application with the written affirmation request.

If the information requested is being sent via United States Postal Service, licensees and applicants must use the following address: Federal Communications Commission, MDS/ITFS Database Corrections, 1270 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325.

Correspondence sent by overnight mail couriers ( e.g. , Federal Express, United Parcel Service, Airborne), hand-delivery or messenger must be addressed to: Federal Communications Commission, MDS/ITFS Database Corrections, 1120 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325.

Second, ITFS licensees and applicants are not required to verify data relating to receive sites. The FCC notes that ITFS licensees are currently prohibited from registering new receive sites. Moreover, while receive sites registered prior to September 17, 1998 are still entitled to interference protection, most such receive sites receive protection because they are located within the thirty-five mile protected service area of the ITFS station. Under those circumstances, and given the fact that many ITFS stations have a large number of registered receive sites, the FCC concludes that it would be unduly burdensome to require ITFS licensees to verify data relating to receive sites at this time. The FCC encourages ITFS licensees with grandfathered receive sites outside the thirty-five mile protected service area to review the data relating to receive sites and to submit corrections if the data does not accurately reflect the receive site, as registered with the FCC on September 17, 1998. The FCC nonetheless note that the prohibition on registering new ITFS receive sites remains in effect.

As required by the Privacy Act of 1974 , as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a (e)(4) and (e)(11), this document sets forth notice of the proposed altered system of records maintained by the FCC; addition of two routine uses to FCC/Central-6 that were formerly in FCC/OMD-4; revision of one routine use in FCC/Central-6 to incorporate elements formerly in FCC/OMD-4; addition of one new routine use to incorporate uses in the Workplace Violence Form; and cancellation of one system of records, FCC/OMD-4. This agency previously gave complete notice of the two systems of records covered under this Notice by publication in the Federal Register on October 23, 2000, 65 FR 63468. This notice is a summary of more detailed information, which may be viewed at the location given in the ADDRESSES section above. The purposes for altering FCC/Central-6, “Personnel Investigation Records” are to merge FCC/OMD-4, “Security Office Control Files” into this system of records to eliminate possible duplications of functions and records; to add new data elements, new purposes, and one new routine use; to update the statutory authority to maintain the information that the Commission may collect when the Workplace Violence Form is introduced; and otherwise to alter, update, and revise this system of records as necessary.

The FCC proposes to achieve these purposes by altering this system of records, FCC/Central-6, “Personnel Investigation Records with these changes:

The incorporation of the data elements of another system of records, FCC/OMD-4, “Security Office Control Files,” into FCC/Central-6;

The elimination of FCC/OMD-4;

The transfer of two routine uses formerly in FCC/OMD-4 to address new and/or revised uses:

Routine use (7) allows disclosure to the security officers of an agency in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch, or the District of Columbia Government, in response to their request(s) for verification of security clearances of FCC employees to have access to classified data or areas where their official duties require such access.

Routine use (8) allows disclosure to request information from a Federal, state, or local agency maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant or pertinent enforcement information or records, such as licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a Commission decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a grant or other benefit.

The revision of one routine use to incorporate uses formerly in FCC/OMD-4:

Routine use (5) allows disclosure to designated officers and employees of agencies, offices, and other establishments in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, and the District of Columbia Government, in response to their request, when such agency, office, or establishment conducts an investigation of the individual for the purpose of hiring, firing, or retention, granting a security clearance, making a determination of qualifications, suitability, or loyalty to the United States Government, or access to classified information or restricted areas, or classifying jobs, letting of a contract, or issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's purpose.

The addition of one new routine use to include the data elements, information, and purposes for the Workplace Violence Form:

Routine use (9) allows disclosure to the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) during the course of the MSPB's investigation of the individual's appeal, following the Commission's adverse action against the individual.

The alteration, revision, or modification of various data elements in FCC/Central-6, including editorial changes to update, simplify, or clarify, as necessary, this system of records.

The FCC Security Officer and the Personnel Security Specialist in the Security Office will use the records in FCC/Central-6 to provide investigative information to determine compliance with Federal regulations and/or an individual's suitability and fitness for Federal employment, access to classified information or restricted areas, position sensitivity, security clearances, evaluations of qualifications, and loyalty to the U.S; to evaluate qualifications and suitability to perform contractual services for the U.S. Government; to document such determinations; to respond to an inquiry conducted under the President's Program to Eliminate Waste and Fraud in the Government; to take action on, or respond to a complaint about a threat, harassment, intimidation, violence, or other inappropriate behavior involving one or more FCC employees and/or contract employees; and to counsel employees.

Records in this system will be available for public inspection at the location given above. The functions in this system of records will be performed by the FCC Security Officer and the Personnel Security Specialist in the Security Office.

This notice meets the requirement documenting the change in the Commission's system of records, and provides the public, Congress, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) an opportunity to comment.

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

Title: Recordkeeping and Confirmation Requirements for Securities Transactions.

OMB Number: 3064-0028.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: All financial institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,732.

Average annual burden hours per Respondent: 27.91.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 132,070 hours.

General Description of Collection: The information collection requirements are contained in 12 CFR 344. The regulation's purpose is to ensure that purchasers of securities in transactions effected by insured state nonmember banks are provided with adequate information concerning the transactions. The regulation is also designed to ensure that insured state nonmember banks maintain adequate records and controls with respect to the securities transactions they effect.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the collection should be modified prior to submission to OMB for review and approval. Comments submitted in response to this notice also will be summarized or included in the FDIC's requests to OMB for renewal of this collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

The Interagency Notice of Change in Director or Executive Officer is submitted regarding the proposed addition of any individual to the board of directors or the employment of any individual as a senior executive officer. The information is used by the FDIC to make an evaluation of the general character of individuals who will be involved in the management of depository institutions, as required by statute.

2. Type of Review: Renewal of a currently approved collection.

Title: Customer Assistance.

OMB Number: 3064-0134.

Annual Burden:

  Estimated number of respondents: 5,000.

  Estimated time per response: 30 minutes.

  Total annual burden hours: 2,500 hours.

Expiration Date of OMB Clearance: January 31, 2003.

A. Need For and Use of Information Collection

Section 10(g)(1) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) requires the Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) to promulgate regulations establishing standards of community investment or service that Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLBank) members must meet in order to maintain access to long-term advances. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(g)(1). In establishing these community support requirements for FHLBank members, the Finance Board must take into account factors such as the FHLBank member's performance under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA), 12 U.S.C. 2901, et seq. , and record of lending to first-time homebuyers. 12 U.S.C. 1430(g)(2). Part 944 of the Finance Board's regulations implements section 10(g) of the Bank Act. See 12 CFR part 944. The rule provides uniform community support standards all FHLBank members must meet and review criteria Finance Board staff must apply to determine compliance with section 10(g). More specifically, section 944.2 of the rule implements the statutory community support requirement. 12 CFR 944.2. Section 944.3 establishes community support standards for the two statutory factors—CRA and first-time homebuyer performance—and provides guidance to a respondent on how it may satisfy the standards. 12 CFR 944.3. Sections 944.4 and 944.5 establish the procedures and criteria the Finance Board uses in determining whether FHLBank members satisfy the statutory and regulatory community support requirements. 12 CFR 944.4 and 944.5.

The information collection contained in Form 96-01, the Community Support Statement Form, and sections 944.2 through 944.5 of the rule is necessary to enable and is used by the Finance Board to determine whether FHLBank members satisfy the statutory and regulatory community support requirements. Only FHLBank members that meet these requirements may maintain continued access to long-term FHLBank advances. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(g).

The OMB number for the information collection is 3069-0003. The OMB clearance for the information collection expires on January 31, 2003.

The likely respondents are institutions that are members of a FHLBank.

The Finance Board estimates that a total annual average of 3970 FHLBank members will file a Community Support Statement, with one submission per member. The estimate for the average hours per submission is one hour. The estimate for the total annual hour burden for members that must file a Community Support Statement is 3970 hours (3970 members × 1 submission per member × 1 hour).

The Finance Board estimates a total annual average of 15 FHLBank members will submit a request to remove a restriction on access to long-term advances, with 1 request per member. The estimate for the average hours per reinstatement request is one hour. The estimate for the annual hour burden for reinstatement requests is 15 hours (15 members × 1 request per member × approximately 1.0 hour).

The Finance Board estimates that the total annual hour burden for all respondents is 3985 hours ((3970 members × 1 Community Support Statement per member +15 members × 1 reinstatement request per member) × 1.0 hour).

In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the Finance Board published a request for public comments regarding this information collection in the Federal Register on October 15, 2002. See 67 FR 63660 (Oct. 15, 2002). The 60-day comment period closed on December 16, 2002. The Finance Board received one comment suggesting that it obtain CRA ratings from the Federal Financial Institution Examination Council (FFIEC) website instead of from members to reduce the reporting burden on members and eliminate in its entirety the reporting requirement for members with an “outstanding” CRA rating. At this time, obtaining CRA ratings from the FFIEC website is not an option because FFIEC generally reports CRA ratings three to six months after a CRA examination is completed while members receive the CRA rating immediately after an examination. Because of the delay in reporting on the FFIEC website, the Finance Board will continue to require members to report their most recent CRA rating on the Community Support Statement.

Written comments are requested on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of Finance Board functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Finance Board's estimates of the burdens of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be submitted to OMB in writing at the address listed above.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collected techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Title I Property Improvement & Manufactured Home Loan Program.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0328.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Title I loans are made by private sector lenders and insured by HUD against loss from defaults. HUD uses this information to evaluate individual lenders on their overall program performance. The information collected is also used to determine claim eligibility.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-637, 646, 27029, 27030, 55013, 55014, 56001, 56001MH, 56002, 56002MH, 56004, 92802.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated number of hours needed to prepare the information collection is 14,739; the number of respondents is 91,215 generating approximately 91,215 annual responses; the frequency of response is on occasion; and the estimated time needed to prepare the responses varies from one minute to one hour.

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection requirement to the OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

Title of Regulation: 24 CFR Part 100, Implementation of the Housing for Older Persons act of 1995; final rule.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2529-0046.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: In the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (the Act) [42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. ], Congress prohibited discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on familiar status (families with children under 18 years of age). However, at § 3607(b)(2) of the act, Congress exempted 3 categories of “housing for older persons” from liability for familial status discrimination: (1) Housing provided under any State or program which the Secretary of HUD determines is specifically designed and operated to assist elderly persons; (2) housing intended for, and solely occupied by, persons 62 years of age or older; and (3) housing intended and operated for occupancy by at least one person 55 years of age or older per unit (“55 or older” housing). In December 1995, Congress passed the “Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (HOPA)” [Public Law 104-76]. The HOPA modified the “55 or older” housing” exemption provided under the Act by eliminating the requirement for “significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of older persons.” The HOPA still requires that at least 80 percent of the occupied units must be occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older; and that housing providers must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent to provide housing for persons 55 years of age or older. In addition, the HOPA mandates compliance with “rules issued by the Secretary for verification of occupancy, which shall * * * provide for [age] verification by reliable surveys and affidavits.”

The final rule does not significantly increase the record keeping burden. It describes in greater detail the documentation that HUD will consider when determining whether or not a community or facility qualifies for the “55 or older” housing exemption. Further, § 100.305(e)(5) of the final rule provides a non-extendible one-year transition period (May 3, 1999-May 3, 2000) for existing communities or facilities that wish to qualify for the “55 or older” housing exemption. An existing community or facility that fails to complete the transition by the expiration of that period must stop reserving vacant units for “55 or older” residents; market available housing to the general public regardless of familial status; and rescind all policies, practices, and procedures that discriminate against residents with minor children. By definition, such communities would no longer need to collect or maintain occupancy/age verification information for purposes of the “55 or older” housing exemption.

The information collection requirements contained in §§ 100.306 and 100.307 of the final rule are necessary to satisfy the criteria for the “55 and older” housing exemption under the HOPA. The information required under the act, the HOPA, and the HOPA final rule will be collected in the normal course of business in connection with the sale, rental, or occupancy of dwelling units within a “55 or older” housing community or facility. The statutory and regulatory requirement to publish and adhere to age verification policies and procedures for current and prospective occupants is the usual and customary practice of the “senior housing” industry without regard to the requirements of the Act or the HOPA. The procedures for verifying ages of current residents may require an initial survey and periodic review and update of existing records. The creation of such records should occur in the normal course of sale or rental transactions and should require minimal time.

Three types of information would be collected under the final rule. The publication of a community's housing policies and procedures is not confidential by nature of the fact that such policies and procedures must be disclosed to current and prospective residents, and to residential real estate professionals. The occupancy survey results must be available for public inspection. The survey summary need not contain confidential information because it may simply indicate the total number dwelling units occupied by persons 55 years of age or older. The supporting age verification records may contain some private information, which would be protected from disclosure unless the community or facility claims the “55 or older” housing exemption as a defense to a jurisdictional familial status discrimination complaint filed with HUD.

HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity will only request disclosure of this information by a housing provider when HUD investigates a jurisdictional familial status discrimination complaint, and the housing provider claims the “55 or older” housing exemption as an affirmative defense to the complaint.

Agency form numbers(s), if applicable: None.

Members of affected public: Both the HOPA and the HOPA final rule require that small businesses and other small entities that operate housing intended for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older to routinely collect and update age verification information necessary to meet the eligibility criteria for the “55 or older” housing exemption. The record keeping requirements are the responsibility of the housing provider that wishes to qualify for the exemption.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including the number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The information collection requirements of the HOPA final rule are the responsibility of the community or facility that claims eligibility for the “55 or older” housing exemption provided under the HOPA. Since the HOPA does not require HUD certification or registration for “55 or older” communities or facilities, it is difficult to estimate the number of communities or facilities that intend to collect this information in order to qualify for the exemption. When the proposed rule was published for public comment in January 1997, HUD estimated that approximately 1,000 communities or facilities would seek the exemption. HUD also estimated that the occupancy/age verification data would require routine updating with each new housing transaction within the community or facility, and that the number of such transactions per year might vary significantly depending on the size and nature of the community. HUD estimated the average number of housing transactions per year at “10 per community.” HUD concluded that the publication of policies and procedures “* * *is likely to be a one-time event and in most cases will require no additional burden beyond what is done in the normal course of business. The estimated total annual burden for the three collections is 5,500 hours.”

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Endangered Species

The public is invited to comment on the following application(s) for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above).

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus dorcas ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus dorcas ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus dorcas ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus dorcas ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus dorcas ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to export, re-export, and re-import captive-born tiger ( Panthera tigris ) and captive-born African leopard ( Panthera pardus ) to/from worldwide locations to enhance the survival of the species through conservation education. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant over a three-year period.

The applicant requests a permit to export, re-export, and re-import captive-born tiger ( Panthera tigris ) and captive-born African leopard ( Panthera pardus ) to/from worldwide locations to enhance the survival of the species through conservation education. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant over a three-year period.

The public is invited to comment on the following application(s) for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The application(s) was submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) and the regulations governing marine mammals (50 CFR Part 18). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of the complete applications or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be submitted to the Director (address above). Anyone requesting a hearing should give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Director.

The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) sport hunted from the Lancaster Soundpolar bear population in Canada for personal use.

The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) sport hunted from the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population in Canada for personal use.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has information collection approval from OMB through March 31, 2004, OMB Control Number 1018-0093. Federal Agencies may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.

The public is invited to comment on the following application(s) for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above).

The applicant requests a permit to import teeth collected from wood bison ( Bison bison athabascae ) in the Mackenzi Sanctuary herd, from the Department of Renewable Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Canada, for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant over a period of 5 years.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has information collection approval from OMB through March 31, 2004, OMB Control Number 1018-0093. Federal Agencies may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.

The public is invited to comment on the following application(s) for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq. ). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above).

Applicant: Thomas Productions, Inc., Las Vegas, NV., PRT-066158 and 066159.

The applicant requests permits to export, re-export, and re-import two captive-born tigers ( Panthera tigris ) to/from worldwide locations to enhance the survival of the species through conservation education. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant over a three-year period.

Applicant: The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID., PRT-065258.

The applicant requests a permit to import, export, and re-export multiple shipments of biological samples from wild, captive-held, and/or captive born endangered species of the order Falconiformes and Strigiformes from worldwide sources, for the purpose of scientific research. No animals can be intentionally killed for the purpose of collecting specimens. Any invasively collected samples can only be collected by trained personnel. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant over a period of five years.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has information collection approval from OMB through March 31, 2004, OMB Control Number 1018-0093. Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.

On September 10, 2002, a notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 57445), that an application had been filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by Ken Vorisek for a permit (PRT-061106) to import one polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) sport hunted from the Northern Beaufort Sea polar bear population, Canada, for personal use.

Notice is hereby given that on December 13, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permit subject to certain conditions set forth therein.

On October 7, 2002, a notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 62490), that an application had been filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by James Leroy Scull, Jr. for a permit (PRT-061116) to import one polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) sport hunted from the Lancaster Sound polar bear population, Canada, for personal use.

Notice is hereby given that on December 12, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permit subject to certain conditions set forth therein.

Representatives from the Service, the Service's Migratory Bird Regulations Committee, and Flyway Council Consultants will meet on January 23, 2003, at 8:30 a.m. to identify preliminary issues concerning the 2003-04 migratory bird hunting regulations for discussion and review by the Flyway Councils at their March meetings.

In accordance with Departmental policy regarding meetings of the Service Regulations Committee attended by any person outside the Department, these meetings are open to public observation. Members of the public may submit written comments on the matters discussed to the Director.

5 CFR 1320.12(a) requires that we provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning a collection of information to solicit comments on:

(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of our estimates of the information collection burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions we use;

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

(d) Ways to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

BLM needs the information to administer its right-of-way program. Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue and renew rights-of-way through public lands under its jurisdiction. These rights-of-way uses are reservoirs, ditches, pipes and pipelines, electrical general and transmission systems, communication systems, roads, airways, and livestock driveways. BLM requires each right-of-way grant holder to reimburse for all reasonable administrative costs to process an application and monitor the right-of-way grant in accordance with section 504(g).

Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as amended, 30 U.S.C. 185 et seq., authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue right-of-way grants through public lands to transport oil, gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels or other refined products. The Act also allows for temporary use permits to supplement each oil and gas pipeline grant to construct, operate, maintain and terminate the pipeline, and to protect public health and safety. BLM requires right-of-way permit holders to reimburse for actual costs to process application for oil and gas pipeline grants under paragraph (f) of section 28.

The nonform information in the regulations under 43 CFR part 2800 and 43 CFR part 2880 authorizes BLM to collect this information to administer the rights-of-way program. Without this information, BLM would not be able to properly administer its right-of-way program.

Based upon BLM experience and recent tabulations of activity, we process approximately 5,066 applications each year. Depending on the complexity of the applications for rights-of-way, responses vary from 8 to 40 hours to complete. The estimated number of responses per year is 5,066. The estimated total annual burden is 126,650 hours.

BLM will summarize all responses to this notice and include them in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

5 CFR 1320.12(a) requires that we provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning a collection of information to solicit comments on:

(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of our estimates of the information collection burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions we use;

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

(d) Ways to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 30 U.S.C. 28f (Pub. L. 105-277), and the regulations under 43 CFR parts 3830-3833, 3840-3843, 3850-3852 authorizes BLM to collect information from owners of unpatented claims, mill sites and tunnel sites to manage the general mining law activities on public lands.

BLM uses Form 3830-2 (Maintenance Fee Waiver) to collect the information to waive the $100 annual maintenance fee that owners of unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites must pay. The owners of unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites must submit the following information to BLM:

(1) The mining claims names and BLM serial numbers;

(2) A declaration that the owners own or have interest in 10 or fewer claims or sites;

(3) A declaration of compliance with the assessment work requirements;

(4) The names and addresses of all owners of the claims and sites; and

(5) The owners'/agents' signatures.

BLM uses Form 3830-3 (Notice of Intent to Locate A Lode or Placer Mining Claim(s) and/or A Tunnel Site(s) and Lands Patented Under the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916, amended to collect information on an applicant who files a notice of intent to locate or explore for a mining claim or tunnel site. The applicant must submit the following information to BLM:

(1) The name and mailing address of the applicant filing the notice of intent to locate or explore for a mining claim or tunnel site;

(2) A legal land description of the lands which the notice of intent will apply;

(3) A brief description of the proposed mineral activities;

(4) A map and legal land description of lands subject to mineral exploration;

(5) The name, address, and phone number of the person managing the activities; and

(6) The dates the activities will take place.

BLM uses the information on recording claims, annual assessment work, notice of intent to hold, and transfer of interest to:

(1) Determine the number and location of unpatented mining claims, mill sites and tunnel sites located on Federal lands to assist in the surface management of these lands and any minerals found there;

(2) Remove any cloud on the title to those lands due to abandoned mining claims;

(3) Provide information as to the location of active claims; and

(4) Keep informed of transfers of interest and ownership.

Without this information, BLM could not protect the rights of surface and mineral owners. Also, the Government's ability to locate, control, and manage surface disturbance is compromised.

Based upon BLM experience, the public reporting information collection burden takes eight minutes per response. The respondents are owners of unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites located on public lands and individuals or organizations who seek to explore for or locate a mining claim. The estimated number of responses per year is 236,852 and the total annual burden is 31,580 hours.

BLM will summarize all responses to this notice and include them in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

The original meeting notice was published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2002 (Vol. 67, No. 236, page 72969). Details, including the meeting location, starting time and agenda items, are unchanged from that publication.

Pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, NRC has prepared an environmental assessment related to a license amendment to Materials License 42-23539-01AF, authorizing decommissioning of the Site OT-10 at Kirtland AFB. On the basis of this environmental assessment, the NRC has concluded that this licensing action would not have any significant adverse effect on the quality of the human environment, and therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the U.S. Air Force's (USAF's) request for approval of the Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB) Decommissioning Plan (DP), located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The licensee requested that four former Defense Nuclear Weapons School (DNWS) Radiation Training Sites at Kirtland AFB's be released for unrestricted use. The four training sites were identified for remediation under the USAF's Installation Restoration Program as Site OT-10. The purpose of this environmental assessment (EA) is to assess the environmental consequences of this license amendment request.

The DNWS Radiation Training Sites are located in the north central part of Kirtland AFB. From 1961 to 1990, these sites were used to train radiological response personnel to detect contamination generated during simulated nuclear weapons accidents. Known quantities of Brazilian thorium oxide sludge were applied and tilled into site soils to simulate dispersed plutonium. The training sites are owned by the U.S. Government and regulated by the NRC under the USAF Master Materials License No. 42-23539-01AF. Four inactive training sites (TS5, TS6, TS7 and TS8) comprise Kirtland AFB's Installation Restoration Program Site OT-10 and are being decommissioned to meet the NRC requirements for unrestricted use, as defined in NRC regulations.

The OT-10 training sites consist of approximately 43 acres, in which approximately 9.2 acres (3.7 hectares) were affected with elevated thorium concentrations at the time of the most recent investigation.

The licensee submitted the DP in July 2000. A revised August 2002 DP was transmitted by cover letter dated November 19, 2002, with the final site-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) submitted on October 2, 2002. In accordance with 10 CFR 40.42, the DP describes the site conditions, the planned decommissioning activities, radiation safety program, planned final radiation survey, and the cost estimate for decommissioning. Decommissioning would occur for approximately 1 1/2 years, tentatively from January 2003, and is expected to continue throughout 2003. Submittal of the final status survey report to the NRC is planned for early 2004.

The radioactive contaminated soil would be removed in accordance with the DP and the licensee's standard operating procedures. The licensee has committed to excavating contaminated soil, vegetation, and debris and transferring them directly to intermodal containers, sampling and analyzing the excavated materials, manifesting the waste, and transporting the waste containers to a licensed disposal facility. The radioactive material would be packaged, handled and stored according to the appropriate health and safety procedures. Packaging contaminated soil would conform to the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations and the disposal site requirements. The USAF would transfer the contaminated soil in intermodal containers by truck to West Control Specialist (WCS) in Andrews County, Texas, or in intermodal containers by rail or truck to Envirocare of Utah.

The purpose of the proposed action is to reduce residual contamination at the site for unrestricted use and removal of the OT-10 training site from the license. NRC is fulfilling its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to make a decision on a proposed license amendment for decommissioning that ensures protection of the public health and safety and environment.

The proposed action is to decontaminate and remediate the OT-10 training sites to release for unrestricted use as delineated in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E, that being 25 mrem/year total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) to the critical group ( i.e. , resident farmer scenario).

The ultimate goal of the decommissioning is to release the OT-10 training sites from the USAF Master Materials License. The general decommissioning would result in the excavation of the source material from the OT-10 training sites to meet the unrestricted use criteria. The excavated material would be transported to a licensed low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) facility ( e.g. , Envirocare of Utah) for disposal. The unimportant quantities of source material, as defined in 10 CFR 40.13, would be shipped to a burial facility ( e.g. , West Control Specialist (WCS) facility in Andrews, TX). Following any necessary remediation, the licensee would perform final status surveys in the area in accordance with the NRC approved DP.

There are no alternatives to the proposed actions besides taking no action.

NRC considered the no-action alternative relative to USAF's request for approval of the DP. The no-action alternative would mean that NRC would not approve the DP and, therefore, would not be able to amend the license. The no-action alternative is not acceptable because it would conflict with NRC's requirement in 10 CFR 40.42, “Expiration and termination of Licenses and Decommissioning of Sites and Separate Buildings or Outdoor Areas,” of timely remediation at facilities or outdoor areas that have ceased NRC licensed operations. Therefore, the no-action alternative is not considered to be reasonable and is not analyzed further in this EA.

Eight training sites were established in November 1961 in the north-central part of Kirtland AFB, which is located in Albuquerque, New Mexico (USAF, 2001b). Training activities were discontinued at four of the training sites in 1990. These four training sites, designated as OT-10 under the USAF's Installation and Restoration Program, are located south of Pennsylvania Avenue, on Kirtland AFB. TS8 was also used as a storage site and has two storage bunkers located within its fenced area. In addition, TS6 contains solid waste management unit (SWMU) SS-69, a 50-ft by 50-ft fenced area previously used to store drums of thorium oxide sludge, contaminated soil and waste fuels. SWMU SS-69 is managed as a separate corrective action unit under Kirtland AFB's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) part B permit.

The following sections provide detailed information on the specific environmental resources and subject areas relevant to the nature of the proposed action.

Kirtland AFB is located on a high, semiarid piedmont alluvial plain and adjacent foothills, about 5 miles east of the Rio Grande. The alluvial plain is cut by the east-west trending Tijeras Arroyo, which drains into the Rio Grande. The western portion of Kirtland AFB lies within the Albuquerque-Belen Basin. The Albuquerque-Belen structural basin contains the through-flowing Rio Grande and lies within a series of grabens and structural basins called the Rio Grande Rift. The deposits consist of interbedded gravel, sand silt, and clay, the bulk of which are referred to as the Santa Fe Group. The soils types consist of Tome very fine sandy loam, Gila fine sandy loam, Bluepoint-Kokan association, Wink fine sandy loam and Tijeras gravelly fine sandy loam.

The Santa Fe Group contains sediments which were deposited as an alluvial fan, playa and fluvial deposits that filled the subsiding basin. The thicknesses of most basin-fill deposits are greater than 3,000 feet, although the thickness varies considerably because of faulting in the basin. The Santa Fe Group contains beds of unconsolidated to loosely consolidated sediment and interbedded volcanic rock. The materials range in size from boulders to clay.

The climate at Kirtland AFB is typical of a high-desert plateau, with low precipitation, wide temperature extremes and typically, clear sunny days. The mean annual precipitation is about 8.4 inches and the mean annual snowfall is 1.25 inches. Summer rains typically account for nearly half of the annual moisture, in the form of brief but heavy local thunderstorms. The prevailing wind direction from May through October is south to southeast, and the mean wind speed is about 8 knots. From November through April, the prevailing wind direction is north to northwest, and the mean wind speed is 7 knots.

The four training sites are located in the Hydrogeologic Region of Kirtland AFB. The estimated hydrologic conductivity in this unit ranges from less than 0.3 ft/day to greater than 30 ft/day. The depth to groundwater is between 300 to 500 ft. Groundwater is thought to be unconfined in the upper portion of the aquifer, but this may not be true in all areas. The uppermost aquifer occurs within the Santa Fe Group.

A shallow saturation zone above the regional aquifer, approximately 200 to 250 ft below ground surface has been identified in the Hydrogeologic Region. This zone is located adjacent to and northwest of the Kirtland AFB landfill. It is associated with either a system of multiple perched aquifers or a groundwater mound. The extent of a shallower saturation zone has not been defined and it is unknown if it exists in the vicinity of the four training sites.

The four former training sites that are to be decommissioned are in the Plains and Great Basin Grasslands. These grasslands are generally flat and open, lying from 4,900 to 7,500 feet in elevation. Common vegetation includes needle-and-thread, galleta grass, sand dropseed, grama grasses, Indian ricegrass, fourwing saltbush, broom snakeweed, sagebrush, winter fat, and yucca.

According to the Kirtland AFB Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan, there are no known federally listed threatened or endangered species on the AFB. The western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) is a federal species of concern that has been observed on Kirtland AFB. This bird nests in prairie dog towns. The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is also a federal species of concern. Loggerhead shrikes occupy grassland, pinyon-juniper, and riparian habitats. This species has been observed on the AFB and is found in the area throughout the year.

The gray vireo (Vireo vicinior) is the only state-listed threatened species known to be on the AFB. Gray vireos have been observed in ungrazed juniper woodland at the base of the western foothills of the Manzanita Mountains at elevations between 5,900 and 6,600 feet. This area is located in the easternmost portion of the AFB. Site OT-10 would not present attractive habitat to the gray vireo because of its distance from vireo nesting areas.

Critical habitats are those areas considered essential for maintaining or restoring threatened or endangered species populations. Neither the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish nor the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated or identified any critical habitat on the AFB.

The land use for the training sites and surrounding areas is classified as public or institutional and noise generated by the proposed decommissioning would not affect residents. Noise is quantified by decibels (dB), weighted by a day-night average sound level (DNL). A DNL of 65 dB is often utilized in planning and represents a compromise between community impact and the need for aviation and industrial activities. Areas exposed to DNL above 65 dB are generally not considered suitable for residential use. The DNL in and around the runways at Kirtland AFB typically exceeds 65 dB. Therefore, the immediate areas surrounding the base runways, including the proposed decommissioning area, are not classified for residential use.

Existing potential noise sources at Kirtland AFB are aircraft, firing ranges, explosive testing, and motor vehicles. An assessment of aircraft noise, including Kirtland aircraft operations, was performed at the Albuquerque International Sunport. The noise baseline attributed to aircraft noise in the proposed OT-10 decommissioning area is 65-70 dB.

Firing ranges and weapons training ranges contribute to moderate, localized noise impacts at Kirtland AFB. Harmful noise levels; that is, those exceeding 140 dB, from weapons testing activities remain within the boundaries/buffer zone of the Kirtland AFB. However, explosive detonations with noise levels of this magnitude are limited to 6-10 tests per year.

Off-road vehicle noise sources, including military transport and military weapons vehicles, are the primary sources of noise from the training and withdraw areas at Kirtland AFB. The military vehicles operate well below speeds of street traffic and measurements have shown that the military vehicles are up to 10 dB noisier than heavy trucks.

Noise generated by motor vehicles is more prevalent in congested areas of Kirtland AFB. Motor vehicle noise was evaluated in a 1995 Kirtland AFB study in a 24-hour traffic count at Gibson Gate and resulted in 71 dB, averaged over a 24-hour period.

Noise impact analyses conducted for the current activities at the Kirtland AFB concluded that there are no adverse impacts to people or wildlife. Military training activities at the AFB are conducted in remote areas, buffered by land, and are restricted to authorized personnel.

The area directly surrounding the proposed project area was surveyed for cultural resources and one historic site was located. This site would not be disturbed by the proposed action. No other historic properties have been located surrounding the project area.

The four training sites which have been discontinued from use and have been identified by the USAF for decommissioning, were used to train U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and other federal and state personnel in the detection of dispersed contamination resulting from simulated nuclear weapons accidents. Known quantities of Brazilian thorium oxide sludge were applied and tilled into site soils to simulate dispersed radiological contamination. The thorium oxide sludge served as a low hazard analog for plutonium. A total estimated inventory of approximately 602 kilograms (kg) of thorium-232 was applied at the inactive sites. The estimated thorium-232 inventory, by site, is presented in the following table.

Section 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii)(II) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and § 4006.4(b)(1) of the PBGC's regulation on Premium Rates (29 CFR part 4006) prescribe use of an assumed interest rate (the “required interest rate”) in determining a single-employer plan's variable-rate premium. The required interest rate is the “applicable percentage” (currently 100 percent) of the annual yield on 30-year Treasury securities for the month preceding the beginning of the plan year for which premiums are being paid (the “premium payment year”). (Although the Treasury Department has ceased issuing 30-year securities, the Internal Revenue Service announces a surrogate yield figure each month—based on the 30-year Treasury bond maturing in February 2031—which the PBGC uses to determine the required interest rate.)

The required interest rate to be used in determining variable-rate premiums for premium payment years beginning in January 2003 is 4.92 percent.

The following table lists the required interest rates to be used in determining variable-rate premiums for premium payment years beginning between February 2002 and January 2003.

Section 4007(b) of ERISA and § 4007.7(a) of the PBGC's regulation on Payment of Premiums (29 CFR part 4007) require the payment of interest on late premium payments at the rate established under section 6601 of the Internal Revenue Code. Similarly, § 4062.7 of the PBGC's regulation on Liability for Termination of Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4062) requires that interest be charged or credited at the section 6601 rate on underpayments and overpayments of employer liability under section 4062 of ERISA. The section 6601 rate is established periodically (currently quarterly) by the Internal Revenue Service. The rate applicable to the first quarter (January through March) of 2003, as announced by the IRS, is 5 percent.

The following table lists the late payment interest rates for premiums and employer liability for the specified time periods:

Section 4219.32(b) of the PBGC's regulation on Notice, Collection, and Redetermination of Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR part 4219) specifies the rate at which a multiemployer plan is to charge or credit interest on underpayments and overpayments of withdrawal liability under section 4219 of ERISA unless an applicable plan provision provides otherwise. For interest accruing during any calendar quarter, the specified rate is the average quoted prime rate on short-term commercial loans for the fifteenth day (or the next business day if the fifteenth day is not a business day) of the month preceding the beginning of the quarter, as reported by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Statistical Release H.15 (“Selected Interest Rates”). The rate for the first quarter (January through March) of 2003 ( i.e. , the rate reported for December 16, 2002) is 4.25 percent.

The following table lists the withdrawal liability underpayment and overpayment interest rates for the specified time periods:

Multiemployer Plan Valuations Following Mass Withdrawal The PBGC's regulation on Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281) prescribes the use of interest assumptions under the PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044). The interest assumptions applicable to valuation dates in February 2003 under part 4044 are contained in an amendment to part 4044 published elsewhere in today's Federal Register . Tables showing the assumptions applicable to prior periods are codified in appendix B to 29 CFR part 4044.